Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No.128/2013 registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar for offences under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468, 120B, and 34 IPC. The Court held that:
“The fact remains that as on date the complainant de facto is not ready for quashing on the basis of settlement; and as mentioned above, apart from the ground of settlement no other ground for quashing has been raised.”
The Court declined to provide protection from arrest or entertain the petition on the basis of an unconsummated settlement.
Facts
- The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR based solely on a settlement allegedly entered into with the de facto complainant (respondent no. 2).
- The de facto complainant, appearing via video conferencing, opposed the quashing, citing non-compliance of settlement terms by the petitioners.
- The petitioners had failed to appear before the Joint Registrar for recording statements, claiming fear of arrest.
- The petitioners had been declared proclaimed offenders, and their anticipatory bail applications were pending before the Sessions Court.
Issues
- Whether the FIR can be quashed solely on the basis of a purported settlement between the petitioners and the complainant?
- Whether protection from arrest should be granted in light of the pending anticipatory bail and status of the petitioners as proclaimed offenders?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioners contended that as per the terms of settlement, the complainant was obligated to support quashing of the FIR.
- They claimed they believed the case stood closed automatically after the settlement.
- Their counsel sought protection from arrest to facilitate their appearance before the Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, confirmed that the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders and had absconded.
- The complainant de facto objected to quashing of the FIR, asserting that the petitioners had not fulfilled the settlement terms and he no longer agreed to the compromise.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized the legal necessity for a genuine and subsisting settlement at the time of hearing a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. A mere reference to a past or future settlement cannot justify quashing if the complainant does not support it unequivocally.
The petitioners’ prayer for protection from arrest was declined due to their absconder status and the pendency of their anticipatory bail.
Precedent Analysis
No specific judicial precedents were cited in the judgment, but the principles applied are consistent with well-established jurisprudence that compounding of non-compoundable offences must be backed by a clear and enforceable compromise, and that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in its absence.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Girish Kathpalia noted:
“First, it is the parties who have to be clear that they have compromised the disputes. Only thereafter, the matter can be proceeded further.”
He observed that placing the matter before the Joint Registrar for settlement recording without a genuine compromise would be “putting the cart before the horse.”
Further, the Court warned against the misuse of pending settlement claims in influencing bail proceedings:
“It is not unprecedented that the Court of Sessions dealing with bail applications is misguided by stating that settlement issues are pending before the High Court.”
Conclusion
The High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing the absence of a valid and existing settlement. It also rejected the request for protection from arrest, given the petitioners’ status as proclaimed offenders. All pending applications were disposed of.
Implications
- This judgment reinforces the principle that mere reference to a compromise, without full compliance or mutual agreement at the time of hearing, cannot be a ground for quashing.
- It serves as a caution to accused persons who attempt to use prospective settlements as a shield against legal consequences, especially when they are fugitives.
- The order underscores the necessity for parties to come with clean hands and clear consensus before invoking the extraordinary powers of the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings.
