Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Jagdish Khatri – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 3141 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2023
FIR Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Section 354 IPC, Section 506/509 IPC, Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court referred to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the case law of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692. The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court. It also highlighted that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to a settlement between the offender and the victim, and continuing the case would cause extreme injustice to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.157/2017 under Sections 354 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom, citing a settlement agreement between the parties involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that due to the settlement agreement and the voluntary consent of the victim, the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: Quashing of FIR under Section 354 IPC, voluntary settlement agreement, exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court. It emphasized that the possibility of conviction being remote and bleak due to a settlement agreement is a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No.157/2017 under Sections 354 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.157/2017 under Sections 354 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No.2/Ms. Ishwanti @ Ishmanti. In the FIR, it has been alleged that she along with her niece went to clean her new house when the Petitioner/accused entered the house and pushed her from her chest. The charge sheet in the case has been filed on 11.01.2018.
2. It has been submitted that the cross-FIR No.154/2017 under Section 506/509 was also lodged on the statement of Ms Pushpa Khatri, wife of the petitioner herein. Thereafter the Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated 24.06.2022 has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement dated 24.06.2022 read as under:
"1. That both the parties shall withdraw their respective cases/claims/suits filed against each other unconditionally from the respective courts.
2. That Mr. Jagdish Khatri shall file quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court for quashing of the above mentioned FIRs i.e 157/17 registered at P.S-Sangam Nihar and Mrs. Ishmanti; W/o Sh. Ajit Singh shall cooperate in quashing of the said FIR and shall make respective statement for quashing of the same.
3. That an application u/s 320 Cr. P.C for compounding of case with respect to F.I.R No.154/17, P.S-Sangam Vihar u/s 506/509 IPC shall be filed by Mr. Dharam Chand, Mr. Pardeep, Mr. Parmod Gupta and Mr. Ajit in the Ld. Trial Court and Mrs. Pushpa Khatri W/o Sh. Jagdish Khatri shall co-operate in the same and shall give respective statement/affidavit to this effect before the Ld.Trial Court.
4. That Mr. Jagdish Khatri shall also withdraw his suit bearing CS/DJ NO.43/2020 filed against Mr. Dharam Chand for seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution.
5. That both the parties shall maintain peace and shall also maintain harmony amongst each other.
6. That both the parties shall bear their respective expenses qua filing of the petition/application in the Hon'ble High Court and before the Ld. Trial Court.
7. That it is agreed between the parties that no party shall file any case/complaint against each other or any of their family members/friends, or relatives and withdraw all or any of the case if filed by any of the parties against each other or any of their family members or friends or relatives before any court of law or authority.
8. The contents of this MOU have been read by the Parties and they have understood the terms of this MOU and the same are true and correct. They agreed to be governed by the same.
9. It is expressly agreed and confirmed that the Parties have arrived at this Settlement out of their own free will and without any duress, coercion, force, or undue influence from anybody and have understood the respective implications with respect to their Civil and Criminal rights under the respective law.
10. Both the Parties also undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions of this Settlement in their letter and spirit. The parties have agreed that by signing this agreement there shall be no claim or demand against each other and all the disputes and differences if any have been amicably settler between the parties hereto."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted pursuant to the MOU, other litigations have been put to rest and therefore prays that the FIR No.157/2017 under Sections 354 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar may be quashed.
4. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidance engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has observed that in the exercise of its inherent pow
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of any court. The possibility of conviction being remote and bleak due to a sett....
The wide plenitude of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C allows for the quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement and the remote possibility of conviction.
The power to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime,....
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. when the chances of conviction are bleak and a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations.
The court may exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings based on a settlement agreement and may impose constructive measures on the parties.
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement, considering the private nature of the dispute and the amicable settlement reached by the parties.
The court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the case would be an abuse ....
The court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power, especially in cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, ....
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
