Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two connected criminal writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1936 of 2016, Mrs. Farida Aslam Khan and her two daughters, challenged FIR CR No.28 of 2016 registered at Dindoshi Police Station for offences under Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, Mrs. Neelima Rajendra Dalvi, alleging that the petitioners had forcibly entered her residence, assaulted her family members, and committed theft. In the cross-petition, Writ Petition No.1937 of 2016, Mrs. Neelima Rajendra Dalvi, her husband, and daughter challenged FIR CR No.29 of 2016 registered at the same police station for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, lodged by Mrs. Farida Aslam Khan. The parties were neighbors residing in the same building, and the dispute arose over a property transaction involving an estate agent. Both sets of petitioners sought quashing of the respective FIRs on the ground that they had amicably settled their disputes and had agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings. The court noted that the parties had filed consent terms and affidavits confirming the settlement. The primary legal issue was whether the High Court could quash FIRs involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise. The petitioners argued that the disputes were private in nature and did not affect society, and that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. The State opposed the quashing, submitting that the offences were serious and not compoundable. The court, after considering the nature of the offences and the fact that the parties had settled their differences, held that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be invoked to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. The court observed that the offences were primarily private in nature and the settlement was genuine. Accordingly, both FIRs and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 26 July 2016.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Compromise - The High Court quashed cross FIRs registered under Sections 392, 448, 341, 323, 506, 427, 452 read with 34 IPC and Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, as the parties had amicably settled their disputes and the offences were primarily private in nature, not affecting societal interest. Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. (Paras 1-16) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Non-compoundable Offences - The court held that even for non-compoundable offences, if the dispute is private and settlement is genuine, the High Court can quash proceedings to secure ends of justice. (Paras 12-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIRs registered against each other by the parties can be quashed on the basis of settlement arrived at between them, considering the nature of offences alleged.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions are allowed. FIR CR No.28 of 2016 and FIR CR No.29 of 2016, both registered with Dindoshi Police Station, and all consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR on settlement
- Section 482 CrPC
- Non-compoundable offences
- Compromise in criminal proceedings
- Inherent powers of High Court
