Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of Nct Delhi) and Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5765, 5768, 5785, 5805 & 5995 of 2018
Decided on : 22-04-2019
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), has the power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases upon evaluation of factors like genuineness, fairness, equity, stage of the criminal proceedings, and interests of justice.
Fact of the Case:
In the present case, the petitioners, accused in four cases of credit card fraud and one case of obscene calls and IT offenses, sought quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement agreements reached through mediation. The trial court had referred the cases to mediation centers, and the parties had arrived at settlement agreements. However, the State opposed the quashing, arguing that the offenses were serious and involved deep-rooted criminal conspiracies.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the settlement agreements were unacceptable and that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed. The Court noted that the offenses involved were serious and had a significant impact on society, and that the accused had engaged in dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings. The Court also expressed concern about the manner in which the trial court had handled the cases, noting that there had been a lack of discipline and control in the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement agreements reached through mediation? 2. Whether the settlement agreements reached in the present cases were acceptable and whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases on the basis of settlement agreements reached through mediation, but this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 2. The settlement agreements reached in the present cases were not acceptable and the criminal proceedings could not be quashed. The offenses involved were serious and had a significant impact on society, and the accused had engaged in dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to take up the cases on a day-to-day basis and ensure that they were decided expeditiously.
R.K. GAUBA, J.
1. In the context of these petitions invoking the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), and similarly placed other petitions which are routinely presented, to seek quashing of criminal proceedings on account of “settlement” of the dispute with the party perceived to be the victim, questions have arisen as to whether the process of mediation, particularly one under the aegis of the court, should be permitted or encouraged to be availed of for bringing about such settlement as may possibly not be taken by the court to be a just or sufficient reason for such intervention, this having regard to the nature of the crime involved. In the course of the scrutiny, some concerns as to the manner in which cases involving grave and serious crimes have been dealt with by the criminal courts have also come up for consideration and directions.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The case of rape and sexual assaults
2. On 15.11.2018, a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC had come up for consideration before this court, it being Crl. MC 5731/2018 titled Manmeetsingh and Ors vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., wherein prayer was made for quashing of the proceedings arising out of first information report (FIR) no.88/2017 of police station Hauz Khas involving offences punishable under Sections 376/377/354/506/509/323/341/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), reliance being placed on a settlement agreement dated 13.09.2018 entered upon by the parties to the said case at Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per the said settlement agreement, the parties therein were locked in four cases, the other matters relating to matrimonial dispute, one being a State case involving offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. But, it was conceded that the allegations of sexual assault, unnatural offence and rape in the case (the quashing of which was being sought) were directed against persons other than the husband. The State had objected to the prayer placing reliance on ruling of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Kurmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641. The petitioners chose to withdraw the said petition, in due deference to the said precedent.
Four cases of credit card frauds
3. The first captioned matter relates to FIR no.47/2003 of police station Special Cell (SB) of Delhi Police, the settlement dated 03.07.2018 on the basis of which the prayer for quashing was made, also covering three other criminal cases they having arisen out of FIR nos.45/2003, 53/2003 and 54/2003, all of the same police station. The next three captioned petitions i.e. Crl. MC Nos.5768/2018, 5785/2018 and 5805/2018 pertain to the said three other connected FIRs.
4. It may be mentioned here that all the aforesaid four cases involve four common petitioners, they being Charanjit Singh Chadha @ Shampy, Dinesh Gupta, Rajiv Arora and Yogesh Mahajan. The case relating to FIR no.47/2003 (Crl. MC 5765/2018) involves one Yashpal Chaudhrani as additional accused (first petitioner). The FIR no.53/2003 (Crl. MC 5768/2018) involves one Akhil Arora as additional accused (first petitioner). The case relating to FIR no.45/2003 (Crl. MC 5785/2018) involves four additional accused (petitioners) viz. Adil Khan, Suhail Khan, Imran Khan @ Mehmood Khan and Aman Nayyar. The last case relating to FIR no.54/2003 (Crl. MC 5805/2018) involves one additional accused (first petitioner) Manish Jain.
5. It appears that each of the said cases (FIRs) had been registered on the complaints of Mr. Anuj Bhatia, Assistant Manager - Risk Control of HDFC Bank, a representative of HDFC Bank Ltd. (“the bank”) which is the second respondent common to all the four matters, its another representative, Mr. Amit Sahni, Assistant Vice President, being a signatory to the settlement agreement.
6. The copy of the report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 Cr. PC filed on 25.10.2004 by th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
