Delhi High Court - OrdersSmt. Amrit Kaur & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 6 January, 2023$~43\n                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n                          +    CRL.M.C. 69/2023\n                                 SMT. AMRIT KAUR & ORS.         ..... Petitioners\n                                              Through: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Adv.\n                                                         All the petitioners in\n                                                         person.\n                                              versus\n                                 THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI\n                                 & ANR.                         ..... Respondents\n                                              Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP\n                                                         for State with SI Sunil Dev\n                                                         Sihag, PS - Shahdara.\n                                                         Ms. Vishalakshi Goel,\n                                                         Adv. for R-2.\n                                                         R-2 in person.\n                                 CORAM:\n                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN\n                                              ORDER%                   06.01.2023\n                          CRL.M.A. 245/2023 (exemption from filing certified copies,\n                          legible copies and less margin in certain documents)1.     Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2.     The application stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. 69/20233.     The present petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.\n                          647/2015 dated 18.12.2015, underSections 420/467/468/471/34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station\n                          Shahdara. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by one\n                          Mr. Udham Singh, who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the\n                          present petition.4.     The FIR was filed alleging that the petitioners, in order to\n                          grab the share in the property of the respondent No. 2, made\n                          some forged documents by making forged signature and thumb\n                          impression of Late Smt. Saran Kaur, mother of respondent No. 2.Signature Not Verified    5.     Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with theDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                            Page 1 of 6Signing Date:09.01.202315:47:42intervention of common friends and relatives, the parties have\n                          settled their disputes and have entered into a settlement deed\n                          dated 24.02.2021 and one rectification deed dated 29.06.2022.6.     All the parties are present in Court and have been duly\n                          identified by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer,\n                          who is present in the Court confirms the factum of settlement\n                          between the parties.7.     The Chargesheet has already been filed.8.     The offence underSection 420of IPC is compoundable in\n                          nature and offences underSection 467,468and471are non-\n                          compoundable in nature.9.     It is well settled that the High Court in exercising its\n                          powers underSection 482CrPC can compound offences which\n                          are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is\n                          a compromise between the accused and the complainant,\n                          however, the Supreme Court had laid down parameters and\n                          guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and\n                          quashing the proceedings.InNarinder Singh & Ors. V. State\n                          of Punjab & Anr.reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme\n                          Court has observed as under :-"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up\n                                 and lay down the following principles by which the\n                                 High Court would be guided in giving adequate\n                                 treatment to the settlement between the parties and\n                                 exercising its power underSection 482of the Code\n                                 while accepting the settlement and quashing the\n                                 proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement\n                                 with direction to continue with the criminal\n                                 proceedings:29.1. Power conferred underSection 482of the\n                                 Code is to be distinguished from the power which\n                                 lies in the Court to compound the offences underSection 320of the Code. No doubt, underSection\n                                 482of the Code, the High Court has inherentSignature Not Verified           power to quash the criminal proceedings even inDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                             Page 2 of 6Signing Date:09.01.202315:47:42those cases which are not compoundable, where\n                                 the parties have settled the matter between\n                                 themselves. However, this power is to be exercised\n                                 sparingly and with caution.29.2. When the parties have reached the\n                                 settlement and on that basis petition for quashing\n                                 the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding\n                                 factor in such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.While exercising the power the High Court is to\n                                 form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two\n                                 objectives.29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those\n                                 prosecutions which involve heinous and serious\n                                 offences of mental depravity or offences like\n                                 murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not\n                                 private in nature and have a serious impact on\n                                 society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have\n                                 been committed under special statute like thePrevention of Corruption Actor the offences\n                                 committed by public servants while working in\n                                 that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the\n                                 basis of compromise between the victim and the\n                                 offender.29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases\n                                 having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil\n                                 character, particularly those arising out of\n                                 commercial transactions or arising out of\n                                 matrimonial relationship or family disputes should\n                                 be quashed when the parties have resolved their\n                                 entire disputes among themselves.29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is\n                                 to examine as to whether the possibility of\n                                 conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of\n                                 criminal cases would put the accused to great\n                                 oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice\n                                 would be caused to him by not quashing the\n                                 criminal cases."10.    Similarly, inParbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State ofSignature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                              Page 3 of 6Signing Date:09.01.202315:47:42Gujarat & Anr.reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641, the\n                          Supreme Court has observed as under :-"16. The broad principles which emerge from the\n                                 precedents on the subject, may be summarised in\n                                 the following propositions:16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of\n                                 the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process\n                                 of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The\n                                 provision does not confer new powers. It only\n                                 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in\n                                 the High Court.16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High\n                                 Court to quash a first information report or a\n                                 criminal proceeding on the ground that a\n                                 settlement has been arrived at between the offender\n                                 and the victim is not the same as the invocation of\n                                 jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an\n                                 offence. While compounding an offence, the power\n                                 of the court is governed by the provisions ofSection\n                                 320of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The\n                                 power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even\n                                 if the offence is non-compoundable.16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal\n                                 proceeding or complaint should be quashed in\n                                 exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the\n                                 High Court must evaluate whether the ends of\n                                 justice would justify the exercise of the inherent\n                                 power.16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court\n                                 has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be\n                                 exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to\n                                 prevent an abuse of the process of any court.16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or\n                                 first information report should be quashed on the\n                                 ground that the offender and victim have settled the\n                                 dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and\n                                 circumstances of each case and no exhaustive\n                                 elaboration of principles can be formulated.16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section\n                                 482 and while dealing with a plea that the disputeSignature Not Verifiedhas been settled, the High Court must have dueDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                                 Page 4 of 6Signing Date:09.01.2023\n15:47:42\n                                  regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.Heinous and serious offences involving mental\n                                 depravity or offences such as murder, rape and\n                                 dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though\n                                 the victim or the family of the victim have settled\n                                 the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not\n                                 private in nature but have a serious impact upon\n                                 society. The decision to continue with the trial in\n                                 such cases is founded on the overriding element\n                                 of public interest in punishing persons for serious\n                                 offences.16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there\n                                 may be criminal cases which have an\n                                 overwhelming or predominant element of a civil\n                                 dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as\n                                 the exercise of the inherent power to quash is\n                                 concerned.16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise\n                                 from      commercial,     financial,    mercantile,\n                                 partnership or similar transactions with an\n                                 essentially civil flavour may in appropriate\n                                 situations fall for quashing where parties have\n                                 settled the dispute.16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the\n                                 criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise\n                                 between the disputants, the possibility of a\n                                 conviction is remote and the continuation of a\n                                 criminal proceeding would cause oppression and\n                                 prejudice; and\n                                 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set\n                                 out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above.\n                                 Economic offences involving the financial and\n                                 economic well-being of the State have implications\n                                 which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute\n                                 between private disputants. The High Court would\n                                 be justified in declining to quash where the\n                                 offender is involved in an activity akin to a\n                                 financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The\n                                 consequences of the act complained of upon the\n                                 financial or economic system will weigh in the\n                                 balance."11.    Keeping in view the nature of allegations, settlementSignature Not Verified    arrived at between the parties, this Court feels that no usefulDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                               Page 5 of 6Signing Date:09.01.202315:47:42purpose will be served by keeping the dispute aliveand\n                          continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the\n                          process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit\n                          case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction underSection 482of\n                          CrPC.12.     However, keeping in mind the fact that chargesheet has\n                          already been filed in FIR No. 647/2015 and the State machinery\n                          has been put to motion, this Court feels that ends of justice would\n                          be served if the parties are put to cost.13.     In view of the above, FIR No. 647/2015 and all\n                          consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject\n                          to payment of cost of Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)\n                          to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a\n                          period of four weeks.AMIT MAHAJAN, J\n                          JANUARY 6, 2023\n                          'KDK'Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:HARMINDER KAUR         CRL.M.C. 69/2023                                          Page 6 of 6Signing Date:09.01.202315:47:42