Gyanender Singh v. State & Anr

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶1The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 413/2016 under Sections 463/467/468/471/120B/420/34 IPC P.S. Saket, New Delhi.

¶2Briefly Stated facts of the case are that the present FIR was lodged on the statement of Mr. Shyam Lal Aggarwal/Respondent No.2 alleging therein that the Petitioner hatched a conspiracy which including forging of rent receipts, in order to strengthen his case for the eviction of Respondent No.2/Complainant.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact it was a landlord-tenant dispute and it the same has been settled between the parties.

It has been submitted that the cross-complaint filed by the respondent no.2 has also been settled in CRL.M.C 1329/2020 dated 10.08.2021.

¶4The affidavit of respondent no.2 has been placed on record.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the settlement respondent no.2 has already vacated the premises no. 1539/2, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

¶6It is submitted that the parties settled the matter amicably out of their own free will without any fear, force or coercion.

¶7IO has duly identified.

¶8The High Court is the highest court of the State and is conferred with the power of control and superintendence over all courts subordinate to it. Besides Articles 226 and 227, Section 482 CrPC also acknowledges the inherent power of the high court to secure the ends of justice. In cases where the offences are not compoundable in nature, the parties on account of an amicable settlement invoke the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the plea that continuance thereof would merely be an abuse of process of law.

¶9It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court that when the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case quash the proceedings.

¶10This court considers that there would be no purpose of continuing with the trial as the parties have reached on a settlement and have decided to give quietus to the proceedings.

¶11In view of the submissions made, the present FIR No. 413/2016 under Sections 463/467/468/471/120B/420/34 IPC P.S. Saket, New Delhi alongwith all the other proceedings emanating therefrom is quashed.

¶12The present petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 25, 2023/AR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + GYANENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Bagga, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State and SI Arun Kumar, PS Saket. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. with R-2. % Date of Decision: 25.05.2023. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA