Allowed

Vinay Kumar Walia v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Mar 2024CRL.M.C./1615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding an FIR for offences under Sections 509 and 354A IPC. Quashing was ordered due to an amicable settlement and the petitioner's apology, holding conviction improbable and further proceedings an abuse of process, subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 769/2018 and all consequential proceedings are quashed subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/- to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Vinay Kumar Walia Vs State (Govt. of NCT of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 1615/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6268/2024

¶4

VINAY KUMAR WALIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Inder Singh and Mr. Omkar, Advs. Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Gaurav, PS Saket. Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh and Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim, Advs. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 05.03.2024

¶7

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) for quashing of FIR No. 769/2018 dated 21.12.2018, registered at Police Station Saket, for the offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’). The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. Charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 354A(1)(iv) and 509 of the IPC.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to some misunderstanding and miscommunication, a quarrel took place between the parties where the petitioner allegedly abused

¶9

Page 1 of 7

¶10

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 11:22:46

¶12

and threatened Respondent No.2 and her friends, which led to the registration of the present FIR.

¶13

He submits that the offence under Section 509 of the IPC is compoundable in nature and charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC erroneously.

¶14

He submits that from a bare perusal of the allegations, it is apparent that no sexually coloured remarks were passed.

¶15

He further submits that the parties are neighbours and they have since settled their disputes. He submits that the parties have decided to bury their disputes and intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶16

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have mutually and amicably settled all their disputes by way of Agreement dated 20.02.2024, on their own free will, without any kind of pressure, force or coercion.

¶17

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

The petitioner, who is present in person, undertakes not to indulge in any such activity as alleged in future. He also gives an unconditional apology to Respondent No. 2 / complainant for the nuisance created.

¶19

Respondent No.2, who is present in person, states that she does not have any grievance against the petitioner since the petitioner has already tendered an unconditional apology and has also undertaken not to indulge into any such activity in future. She submits that she does not wish to pursue any proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the same is quashed.

¶20

Offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC is noncompoundable whereas offence under Sections 509 of the IPC is CRL.M.C. 1615/2024 Page 2 of 7

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 11:22:46

¶23

compoundable.

¶24

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶25

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶26

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶27

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶28

(i) ends of justice, or

¶29

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶32

¶33

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶34

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶35

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶36

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr . : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶39

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶40

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the

¶41

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

¶44

ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶45

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶46

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶47

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶48

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶49

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not

¶50

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

¶53

private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶54

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶55

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶56

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶57

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶58

(emphasis supplied)

¶59

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that conviction of the petitioner in the present case is improbable and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive. The continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse

¶60

Page 6 of 7

¶61

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶62

¶63

of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶64

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charges have already been framed in the case arising out of FIR No. 769/2018, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

¶65

In view of the above, FIR No. 769/2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks.

¶66

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶67

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶68

MARCH 5, 2024 ‘KDK’

¶69

Page 7 of 7

¶70

CRL.M.C. 1615/2024

¶71

This is a digitally signed order.

¶72

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/03/2024 at 11:22:46

Vinay Kumar Walia v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Walia v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sagar and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohit Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vipin Jain Vs the State through SHO & Anr.

Dhamm Priya Bodh @ Dhamm Priya Bauddh and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Yogesh @ Tunda Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi)

Prithvi Raj Kasana & Ors. Vs State