2022 (5) TMI 1592 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory bail - parties have already arrived at a settlement and the respondent no.2 has already received the full and final settlement amount - HELD THAT - It is noted that the co-ordinate Bench of this court in Noor Salim Rana Ors. v. State (govt of NCT of Delhi) Anr. 2016 (1) TMI 1503 - DELHI HIGH COURT observed that pursuing of prosecution even after compromise between the parties would be contrary to securing the ends of justice; and exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC in FIR no.70/2009 under Sections 365/364A/328/344/120B/174A/34 IPC PS Nabi Karim and quashed the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Considering the fact that disputes between the parties have already been settled and the respondent no.2 has already received an amount of Rs.2, 25, 000/- in full and final pursuant to settlement it is opined that bringing these proceedings to an end would only further the ends of justice. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR under Section 420/174A IPC after settlement between parties.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of FIR under Section 420/174A IPC after settlement between parties

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 1349/2015 under Sections 420/174A IPC, citing a compromise reached with the respondent. The compromise involved the petitioner paying Rs.2,25,000 to the respondent, as recorded in a court order dated 08.04.2022. The respondent confirmed receiving the settlement amount voluntarily, with no objection to quashing the FIR. The court noted that the principal offence under Section 420 IPC was compoundable. The question arose whether the offence under Section 174A IPC should be quashed post-settlement. The court referred to a similar case where pursuing prosecution after compromise was deemed contrary to justice. Citing the power under Section 482 CrPC, the court held that quashing the FIR would serve the ends of justice, especially when disputes were settled and the respondent received the settlement amount. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings under Section 420/174A IPC.

This judgment highlights the court's discretion in quashing FIRs post-settlement, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice and considering the nature of offences involved. The court's reliance on legal precedents and the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC demonstrate a balanced approach towards resolving disputes and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings. The judgment underscores the significance of settlements in criminal cases and the court's role in promoting amicable resolutions while upholding the principles of justice and equity.