Delhi HC quashes FIR under Sections 365, 364A, 328, 174A IPC despite non-compoundable nature citing Section 482 CrPC powers

Delhi HC quashed FIR proceedings under Sections 365, 364A, 328, 174A IPC despite these being non-compoundable offences. The parties had amicably resolved their dispute. Court held that when offences are personal in nature and do not affect public peace, and where quashing would secure justice, Section 482 CrPC empowers courts to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences. Relying on SC precedent in B.S. Joshi case, court ruled that Section 320 CrPC limitations do not bar Section 482 powers when justice requires quashing. Petition allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C based on settlement between parties.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No. 70/2009 dated 07.09.2009, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, based on a settlement with the respondent. The FIR was lodged by the respondent alleging kidnapping of her husband by the accused. The accused were declared Proclaimed Offenders as they were absent during proceedings.

2. The respondent confirmed in court that the disputes between the parties had been resolved amicably. She wrote to the SHO to stop the investigation based on the settlement. She affirmed the settlement in her affidavit, stating that she had no objection to quashing the FIR. The respondent's statement confirmed the compromise and resolution of all disputes with the petitioners.

3. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab regarding quashing criminal proceedings based on settlements. The court noted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving serious offences. However, in cases with a predominantly civil character or arising from family disputes, quashing may be appropriate if the parties have settled their disputes.

4. The court held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In this case, as the matter had been settled amicably and the respondent agreed to quash the FIR, continuing legal proceedings would cause extraordinary delay. Therefore, the court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and end the proceedings.

5. The court emphasized that the inherent power should not be used to circumvent express provisions of law and should only be exercised when there is a risk of manifest injustice or abuse of the court process. Quashing proceedings in cases where offences are personal and do not affect public peace can bring about peace and secure justice. The court justified quashing non-compoundable offences under special circumstances to secure the ends of justice.

6. Considering the facts and the respondent's statement, the court concluded that quashing the FIR and proceedings was warranted. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and FIR No. 70/2009 under various sections of IPC was quashed against the petitioners. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---