Can a case u/s. 354 be referred to lokadalath & compromised?

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 12 November 2017 This query is : Resolved
Hi i am Rekha. Myself, my mom, my brother, my uncle were falsely implicated in a case for the offenses U/s. 354, 504, 506 by one women and subsequently Chargesheet is submitted before Magistrate court and we have now started receiving Summons from the court for appearance.
While i received this information from police, i have taken anticipatory bail and regular bail is pending.
This women/the complainant who filed this case, has come under instigation of one of our known person and has filed such a case on our family to spite revenge.
Now the terms between the complainant women and the man who forced her to file this complaint are no more in good terms. She has now come forward to compromise the case, as she doesn't want to be involved in this anymore.
Above case is pending before the Magistrate court and i have filed a revision petition before sessions for a discharge and the Magistrate court records are now before sessions judge in the discharge case.

What are the possibilities i have to get this case closed ?
1. Can i get it referred to Lok Adalath and get the case compromised and dispose it off ?
2. Should i file a quashing petition before HC and get it compromised before High Court ?
3. As i have my current discharge case pending before Session Judge, can the complainant come before session Judge and file any kind of Affidavit and request the judge to close the case as compromised ?
4. Or should i get the case charged and get it posted to Evidence and call all the witness for examine and they withdraw their statements and get the case disposed. ??

Kindly suggest which amongst is advisable. No.4 option is slightly complicated, as all the alleged accused persons are scattered to different places and its not possible to secure them and get the case CHARGED. Please Advise.

Many Thanks

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Kiran Kumar (Expert) 13 November 2017
at one point of time offence u/s 354 used to be compoundable in nature...however, at present there could be different opinion regarding the quashing of FIR u/s 354 IPC...let me share with you a Delhi High Court Judgment which you can utilize for your purpose...

Kiran Kumar (Expert) 13 November 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aakash Sharma v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 865697
2017(4) AD(Delhi) 601

DELHI HIGH COURT
Before:- Mr. P.S. Teji, J.

W.P (CRL) 1097 of 2017. D/d. 27.4.2017.

Aakash Sharma - Petitioner

Versus

State & Anr - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rakesh Patiyal, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for State with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC, Addl. SHO, ACP Sarai Rohilla and W/SI Sonu, PS Roop Nagar, Advocates.

For the Respondent no. 2 in person :- Mr. Surender Nagpal, Advocate.

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 354 /354A/341 Quashing of FIR - Notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354 is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section - In view of statement made by the respondent no. 2 the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

[Paras 8 to 11]

Cases Referred :

B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi.

JUDGMENT

P.S. Teji, J.(Oral) - The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Aakash Sharma for quashing of FIR No.41/2017, under Sections 354/354-A/341 IPC registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, namely, Smt. Harshita.

2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner who studied in the same school as the complainant/respondent no.2 and was acquainted with her came to visit the complainant on 25.02.2017 at her residence. She came down onto the ground floor when the petitioner forcibly held on to her, misbehaved and tried to molest the complainant. The complainant shouted out for her aunt and was told that his father would be called for the misdeed he had committed and hearing this the petitioner fled the spot.

Thereafter, the FIR in question was registered against the accused/petitioners by the complainant/Respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and now no dispute survives between them.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent upon the intervention of the respective family members of both parties. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a settlement with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognised the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding 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 form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no. 2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

9. It is a settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354 is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the Respondent No. 2 the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.41/2017 under Sections 354/354A/341 IPC registered at Police Station, Roop Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Petition allowed.

Kiran Kumar (Expert) 13 November 2017
Ask your counsel to find out this judgment from his library and he may further find a few more to support your case.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 13 November 2017
No advice to an author who is anonymous.

You can post the query in fresh thread with your identity and material facts.