Allowed

Sanjay Meena v. State through SHO Ps Burari and Anr.

Delhi HC23 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./531/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for criminal intimidation and harassment. Relying on Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that with an amicable settlement and the victim's consent, continuing proceedings would defeat justice, especially as the offence had a civil flavour.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.942/2021 dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 506/509 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Sanjay Meena Vs State through SHO Ps Burari and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 531/2024

¶4

SANJAY MEENA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate with Petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with SI Deepak Kumar, PS: Burari. R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 23.01.2024

¶11

CRL. M.A. 2105/2024 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 531/2024

¶15

This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.942/2021 dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at PS: Burari including proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that Respondent No. 2 was in a relationship with the Petitioner who was also her tenant. After around 2-2½ years, the parties developed a relationship, but in a short period of time, Respondent No. 2 realized that the relationship was not working for either Petitioner or Respondent No. 2. On this, Petitioner started extending threats

¶17

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 1 of 9

¶18

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 29/02/2024 at 11:13:24

¶19

of committing suicide. Respondent No. 2 gave a number of chances to the Petitioner to restart the relationship but the parties could not resolve their differences. Ultimately, Respondent No. 2 communicated to the Petitioner that she could not continue in the said relationship. Respondent No. 2 also conveyed that she was HIV+, upon which the Petitioner started giving threats of sending her personal pictures and chats to the family, friends, relatives and colleagues of Respondent No. 2. Petitioner was also making fake IDs on Instagram and defaming Respondent No. 2 by stating that she was having sex chats with someone and circulating screenshots of those fake chats. Petitioner also made an account on Instagram and uploaded personal pictures of Respondent No. 2 and sent requests from the said ID to the family and friends of Respondent No. 2. On a complaint made by Respondent No.2, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the Petitioner.

¶20

It is stated in the petition that during the pendency of the proceedings, parties have mutually resolved all their disputes and differences with the intervention of well-wishers and relatives. Terms of settlement have been incorporated in a Settlement Agreement dated 19.12.2023, copy of which has been filed with the petition.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner urges this Court to quash the FIR since the matter has been amicably resolved and relies on an order passed by the Supreme Court in Jasmair Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Another, (2022) 9 SCC 73 as well as the orders passed by this Court in Deepak Verma v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 2256/2022, decided on 25.09.2023 and in Tarun and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., CRL.M.C. 2828/2022, decided on 03.06.2022 , wherein

¶22

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 2 of 9

¶23

¶24

Courts have quashed the FIRs predicated on the settlement arrived at between the parties, under similar provisions.

¶25

Issue notice.

¶26

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶27

Petitioner as well as Respondent No.2 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Deepak Kumar, PS: Burari. Respondent No.2 submits that she has entered into a settlement out of her own free will, as she does not want to prosecute this complaint and wants to put a quietus to the litigation so that she can lead a peaceful life hereinafter. Learned APP submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, he leaves the decision to the Court.

¶28

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of quashing of an FIR where parties have entered into amicable resolution of the disputes, one of the considerations would be whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings despite the compromise and if the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, in order to ensure that the disputes are put to an end and peace is restored as securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. This was of-course with a caveat that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or the victim’s family settles the disputes with the offender. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows:-

¶29

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 3 of 9

¶30

¶31

“55 . In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. xxx xxx xxx

¶32

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on

¶33

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 4 of 9

¶34

¶35

its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx

¶36

61 . The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶37

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 5 of 9

¶38

¶39

The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017)

¶40

9 SCC 641 , has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR/criminal complaint and relevant passages are as follows:-

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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 private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the

¶48

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 6 of 9

¶49

¶50

overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

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.”

¶55

12. In Ramgopal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶56

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘non-compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

¶57

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 7 of 9

¶58

¶59

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

¶60

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

¶61

14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”

¶62

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page 8 of 9

¶63

¶64

Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP as well as Respondent No. 2, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Preeti Priya Darshini & Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CRL. M.C. 1677/2018, decided on 10.10.2018 and Nipun Arora v. State & Anr., CRL M.C. 8419/2023, decided on 20.11.2023 . In view of the settlement between the parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No.2 that she does not want to pursue the complaint, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings emanating from the present FIR, as the chances of conviction are bleak and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings are terminated. Accordingly, FIR No.942/2021 dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at PS: Burari is quashed including proceedings emanating therefrom. 14. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶65

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶66

JANUARY 23, 2024/shivam/kks

¶67

9 of 9

¶68

CRL.M.C. 531/2024 Page

¶69

Sanjay Meena v. State through SHO Ps Burari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Meena v. State through SHO Ps Burari and 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

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs the State and Anr.

Mr. Lalit Bhasin Vs Pawan Trade Connect Pvt. Ltd.

Lalit Bhasin Vs Addies Innovation Pvt. Ltd.

Tushar Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Kapil Mohan Tyagi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh. Love Bhushan Gupta Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.