CRL.M.C. 2937/2019

Page 1

$~9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEWDELHI

Reserved on: August 18, 2022

Decided on: August 22, 2022

+ CRL.M.C. 2937/2019

LAUKUSH KUMAR

….Petitioner

Through:

Mohd. Zahid, Mr. Brahm Kr.

Pandey

and

Ms.

Suhani

Sumanchna, Advocates with

petitioner in person.

V

STATE(GOVT. OF NCT) & ANR.

…..Respondents

Through:

Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State

with Insp. Dharmendra Kumar,

P.S. Preet Vihar.

Mr.

Shantanu

Aggarwal,

Advocate for R-2 with SPA

holder of R-2 (through VC)

%

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR bearing No. 0020/2017 dated 17.01.2017 registered

at P.S. Preet Vihar under sections 387/506 IPC and consequential

proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

2.

The perusal of FIR bearing No. 0020/2017 dated 17.01.2017

reflects that on 15.01.2017 at about 3:36 PM, the respondent no. 2

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003232

CRL.M.C. 2937/2019

Page 2

received a call from mobile No. 9810001208 from unknown person

who threatened him and also threatened to kidnap daughter aged

about 3 years and also demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner was

arrested on 18.01.2017 during investigation. The charge-sheet was

filed after completion of investigation and the trial is stated to be

pending in the Court of Shri Amit Arora, ACMM, East,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent no. 2

has settled with the petitioner vide settlement deed dated 09.03.2019

whereby the respondent no. 2 has agreed not to pursue with the

proceedings arising out of FIR bearing No. 0020/2017 on

humanitarian ground and without any consideration.

4.

The counsel for the respondent no. 2 who had joined through

video-conferencing also stated that the respondent no. 2 who at

present is residing in Australia, does not have any objection if the

present petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No. 0020/2017 is

allowed to be quashed.

5.

The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State raised objection

by stating that the present FIR pertains to offence under section 387

IPC which is non-compoundable offence as per section 320 Cr.P.C.

and as such the present petition cannot be allowed and FIR bearing

No. 0020/2017 cannot be quashed.

6.

Section 320 of the Code deals with compounding of offences.

As per sub section (1) certain specified offences can be compounded

without leave/permission of the court and as per sub section (2)

certain specified offences can be compounded with leave/permission

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003232

CRL.M.C. 2937/2019

Page 3

of the court. Section 482 saves the inherent power of the High Court

and reads as follows:-

Section. 482. Saving of inherent power of High

Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to

limit or affect the inherent powers of the High

Court to make such orders as may be necessary to

give effect to any order under this Code, or to

prevent abuse of the process of any Court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

7.

The Supreme Court in various decisions considered issue

whetherHigh Court in exercise ofits inherent powers under section

482 of the Code can quash criminal proceedings/ FIR/ complaint and

section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under

section 482of the Code. The Supreme Court continuously observed

that the extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and

caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court

or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers

entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

8.

The power of compounding and quashing of criminal

proceedingsin exercise of inherent powers are not equalor inter-

changeable in law.The Su