Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relating to a called-off marriage. Parties settled before mediation and the complainant received the full settlement amount. Relying on Gian Singh, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~101
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Gayatri Nandwani, Advocate along with Petitioners in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Ramakant, P.S. Burari. R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
CRL.M.A. 2920/2024 (exemption)
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2919/2024 (stay)
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 1 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
meantime, expired on 31.01.2022. Copy of the death certificate has been annexed to the present petition.
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 2 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
No.2 acknowledges having received the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- in Court and submits that she has no objection to the FIR being quashed as all disputes have been amicably settled with the Petitioners.
“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 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 3 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
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 its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed. xxx xxx xxx
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.
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 4 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
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.”
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 5 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
Court in Nasiruddin @ Nasir & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 8996/2023 decided on 08.12.2023 and Sonu and Ors. v. State and Ors., CRL.M.C. 1351/2019 decided on 13.03.2019 , where the Courts have quashed FIRs under similar provisions, predicated on settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, FIR No. 186/2013 dated 14.05.2013 under Sections 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS: Burari is quashed including proceedings emanating therefrom.
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 30, 2024/kks
CRL.M.C. 727/2024 Page 6 of 6
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 11/03/2024 at 12:26:55
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR under Sections 406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of a full settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherRelied on¶10
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Nasiruddin @ Nasir & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.Relied on¶11
CRL.M.C. 8996/2023
Sonu and Ors. v. State and Ors.Relied on¶11
CRL.M.C. 1351/2019
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Raj Kumar Chauhan and Anr.
State of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
Jyoti Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
