Quashed

Sahabuddin v. the State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed FIRs registered under Sections 308 and 326 IPC. Relying on Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir precedents, the Court held that since a settlement was reached and further proceedings would be an abuse of process, the cases were quashed. However, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the parties.

What did the court decide?

Cross FIRs No. 388/2019 and 389/2019 and all consequential proceedings quashed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 cost.

Sahabuddin Vs the State Gnct of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~52 & 54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.A. 388/2024 SAHABUDDIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Mishra and Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. Petitioner in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶6

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Dharmendra, P.S. Kishangarh. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶7

CRL.M.C. 101/2024 & CRL.M.A. 401/2024 INDRAJEET MONDAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Adv. Petitioner in person.

¶8

versus

¶9

THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

¶10

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Dharmendra, P.S. Kishangarh Mr. R.S. Mishra and Mr. Anand Mishra, Advs. for R-2 Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 05.01.2024

¶14

CRL.M.A. 388/2024 in CRL.M.C. 96/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of all the annexures) CRL.M.A. 401/2024 in CRL.M.C. 101/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of all the annexures)

¶15

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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 06/05/2024 at 16:03:04

¶18

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶19

The applications stand disposed of.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶21

The present petitions are filed for quashing of FIR No. 388/2019 under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’), and also FIR No. 389/2019 under Section 326 of IPC, both dated 20.10.2019, registered at Police Station Kishan Garh South respectively.

¶22

It is averred that due to some misunderstanding and miscommunication, an altercation took place between the parties, who were neighbours. This led to filing of the cross-FIR Nos. 388/2019 and 389/2019. Currently, FIR No.388/2019 is pending before learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and FIR No. 389/2019 is pending before learned MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

¶23

The present petitions are filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and buried their differences, without any coercion or pressure, with the intervention of well wishers and respectable members of the society.

¶24

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties undertake to live peacefully in the future, and to not indulge in any such activities.

¶25

The parties are present and have been duly identified by the IO, and state that they do not have any objection if the proceedings are quashed. The IO also states that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

¶26

Offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable whereas offence under Section 308 IPC is non-compoundable.

¶27

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

¶30

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 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. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶31

“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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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:

¶34

(i) ends of justice, or

¶35

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

¶36

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶37

Page 3 of 7

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶47

Page 4 of 7

¶48

¶49

new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶56

Page 5 of 7

¶57

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

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.”

¶63

Keeping in view the pre-existing relationship between the parties, the nature of dispute and that the parties have decided to live peacefully, 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 CrPC.

¶64

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶65

Page 6 of 7

¶66

¶67

However, keeping in mind the fact that chargesheets have already been filed in both cases arising from FIR Nos. 388/2019 and 389/2019, and the State machinery has been put to motion, this Court feels that ends of justice would be served if the parties are put to cost.

¶68

In view of the above, cross FIR Nos. 388/2019 and 389/2019, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.

¶69

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶70

JANUARY 5, 2024 / “SK” / SSH

¶71

CRL.M.C. 96/2024 & CRL.M.C. 101/2024

¶72

Page 7 of 7

¶73

This is a digitally signed order.

¶74

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 06/05/2024 at 16:03:04

Sahabuddin v. the State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahabuddin v. the State Gnct of Delhi 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

Rakesh Kaushik Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Collins Uka Okoro Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Manish Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Shantanu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Vinod Jain Vs Prabhash Jain & Anr.

Popin @Vipin Vs State & Anr.