Naveen Pratap Singh v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶1Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.0172/2019 dated 01.04.2019 registered under Section 354D IPC at PS Dwarka South.

¶2The FIR has been lodged on the statement of Ms.Rekha alleging that the petitioner used to stalkher and also send her vulgar messages. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 354D against the petitioner. However, now the parties submit that during the pendency

of the proceedings, they have reached a settlement. The settlement deed dated 30.01.2023 has been placed on record, terms and conditions of which read as under:

1.That the second party had lodged an FIR no.0172/2019, P.S. Dwarka South, U/s 354 (D) IPC, on dated 01/04/2019 against the first party.

¶2That the second party is the complainant in the above-noted case.

3.That in this regard, the above-noted case is pending before M.M.(Mahila Court) and the same is fixed for 31/01/2023.

¶4That the now second party does not want to proceed against the first party.

¶5That both parties will cooperate the each other to quash the present matter in any court of law i.e. High Court of State. Whenever the both parties will file quashing petition in the High Court of Delhi for the same purpose.

¶6That the second party and first party shall not make any dispute against each other in future for the present dispute and shall live with peacefully.

¶7That both parties are ready to make compromise and after this compromise the both parties shall not proceed against the each other, in future.

¶8That both parties are compromising with each other from legal proceedings and saving their valuable times.

¶9That both the parties shall be abided by the rules of this Hon'ble Court as well as terms and conditions of this compromise.

¶10That the compromise has been taken place between the first party and second party with their freewill mutual consent of both parties without any threat, pressure, undue influence.

¶11That second party shall withdraw the above said from the Courts and police station.

¶3The petitioner and respondent no.2 are appearing through VC and duly been identified by the IO. Ms.Rekha/respondent no.2 submits that the FIR was lodged on the basis of some misunderstanding at the instance of her deceased husband. She states that now she does not want to pursue the present complaint as she has voluntarily entered into the settlement without any fear, force or coercion. She submits that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶4IO also submits that there is no other case against the petitioner.

¶5The 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 power under Section 482, the High Court can quash FIR/Charge-sheet on the basis of alleged settlement except in cases of rape, murder, dacoity or the cases under the Special Statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.

¶6It has also been repeatedly held that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete

settlement and compromise with the victim. Reliance can be placed upon Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692

¶7In the present case, it appears from the interaction with respondent no.2/ complainant that she is not going to support the case of the prosecution and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. In view of the matter, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and it is an abuse of the process of the court. There would be no purpose in continuing with the present proceedings and accordingly, FIR No.0172 dated 01.04.2019 registered under Section 354D IPC at PS Dwarka South and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶8The present petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 9, 2023 rb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1395/2023, CRL.M.A. 5389/2023 NAVEEN PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Varun Singh and Mr.Janmejay Pratap Singh, Advocates Petitioner (through VC) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Raghvinder Verma, APP for the State. SI Ritu, PS Dwarka South Respondent no.2 in person. % Date of Decision: 09.05.2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA