Allowed

Mohd Tahir & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2024W.P.(CRL)/458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR filed under IPC for offences allegedly arising from a landlord-tenant dispute. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled and investigation had not started, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process, allowing the court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 54/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Mohd Tahir & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~77

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 MOHD TAHIR & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Agarwal, Mr. M. Tabish Zia & Mr. Ahmar Abrar, Advs. Petitioners in person

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Sangeet Sibou & Mr. Jatin, Advs. SI Naveen Kumar, PS- IP Estate R2 in person

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.02.2024

¶8

CRL.M.A. 4170/2024 (for exemption)

¶9

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(CRL) 458/2024

¶12

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) for quashing of FIR No. 54/2024 dated 21.01.2024, for the offences under Sections 323/448/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, including all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, against the petitioners.

¶13

The said FIR was registered on a complaint given by

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 Page 1 of 7

¶16

Respondent No. 2, alleging that Petitioner No.3, who is the landlord of the premises that is rented by Respondent No.2 and her family, had entered into the tenanted premises, along with Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, and misbehaved with Respondent No. 2. It is also alleged that Respondent No.2 was beaten up by the petitioners and was thrown out of the tenanted premises.

¶17

The learned counsel for the parties submit that FIR No. 54/2024 essentially relates to a landlord-tenant dispute. They submit that the tenancy of Respondent No.2 had expired in the month of November, 2022, whereafter when the petitioners approached Respondent No.2 to take the vacant possession of the premises and demand the dues of the payable rent, a scuffle took place between the parties which led to the filing of the said FIR.

¶18

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioners and Respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute by way of Memorandum of Settlement dated 24.01.2024, with the intervention of respectable members of the society, wellwishers and family, on their own free will, without any undue influence, coercion or pressure.

¶19

In terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 24.01.2024, it is now agreed between the parties that Respondent No.2 would continue to stay in the property till April, 2024 and would pay the agreed rent.

¶20

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

¶21

Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she is satisfied with the terms of the settlement. She submits that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

¶22

The parties state that they want to live their lives

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

peacefully and happily. They further state that they will not indulge in any such activity in the future.

¶26

Offences under Sections 323, 448 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable whereas the offence under Section 452 is noncompoundable.

¶27

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 Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶28

“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:

¶29

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.

¶30

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶34

(i) ends of justice, or

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors

¶42

v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶43

“16. The broad principles which emerge from

¶44

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶45

Page 4 of 7

¶46

the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶54

Page 5 of 7

¶55

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 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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

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.”

¶60

(emphasis supplied)

¶61

Keeping in view the nature of dispute, the fact that the present FIR was registered on 21.01.2024 and the investigation is

¶62

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶63

Page 6 of 7

¶64

yet to begin, and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶65

In view of the above, FIR No. 54/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 14. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶66

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶67

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 “SS”

¶68

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 458/2024 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 17/12/2024 at 15:46:57

¶69

Page 7 of 7

Mohd Tahir & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Tahir & Ors. v. State 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

Puran Singh@ Vipin Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Gaurav Soni & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Jitender Kumar Jain Vs the State & Anr.

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

MD Aarif & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Misham @ Kasif & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Poonam Sharma & Ors. Vs the State

Gurudev Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Robin Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Jitender Kumar Jain Vs the State & Anr.

Sunil Rai Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. through SHO Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi & Ors.

Ravinder and Ors. Vs State Goivt.of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) through SHO of Police Station Wazirabad & Anr.

Sumit Rana & Ors. Vs State & Anr.