Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohit Mahlawat & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 23 November, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 & CRL.M.A. 18511/2021
MOHIT MAHLAWAT & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioners in person with Mr.Deepak
Tyagi & Mr.Ashwani Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmed, APP for State with
SI Anil Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj,
North.
R-2 in person with Mr.Shahroz
Bakshi, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 23.11.2021 CRL.M.A. 18511/2021 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2938/2021The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties vide a compromise deed dated 01.11.2021; that the petitioners and the respondent no.2 are friends and that the quarrel CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
had taken place in view of a trivial issue and as the parties have settled all their disputes, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the present FIR.
The deputed Investigating Officer of the case, SI Anil Kumar is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Mohit Mahlawat, petitioner no.2 Rajdeep and petitioner no.3 Avinash Prasad present today in Court as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he has also identified the respondent no.2 Pravesh Malik as being the complainant of the said FIR.
At the outset, on behalf of the State, learned APP for the State submits that the injuries sustained by the injured/complainant of the FIR were grievous in nature and has produced the MLC No.500176976 of the Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center to submit to the effect that the injuries sustained by the injured in the instant case were caused with a sharp object and the nature thereof has been opined to be grievous. Undoubtedly, the said MLC depicts as under:-
"Wound 1 OTHERS 2 PENETRATING INJURY OF SIZE ABOUT 0.5 CMX0.5 CM IN ANTERIOR ABDOMEN IN LEFT SUBCOSTAL REGION Wound 2 OTHERS 1 PENETRATING INJURY OF ABOUT COPY 0.5 CMX0.5 CM IN EPIGASTRIC REGION.
OPINION Nature of Injury (Grievous) Kind of Weapon (Sharp)."
The copy of the MLC be placed on the record by the State. It is essential to observe that vide the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Court in "Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh" in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, a verdict dated 29.09.2021, the parameters for invocation of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in circumstances similar, had been laid down as under:-
"11. True it is that offences which are „noncompoundable‟ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of „compoundable‟ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck postconviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
or professional offenders, who can secure a „settlement‟ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."
....
....
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences „compoundable‟ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
In the said case, the offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 having not been allowed to be compounded by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in view of the personal nature of the dispute between the parties was allowed to be compounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal & Anr. (supra).
Taking into account the deposition of the respondent no.2 who has been duly identified by the deputed Investigating Officer as being the complainant of the FIR in question and there being no reason to disbelieve CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the statement of the respondent no.2 that he has arrived at a settlement voluntarily with the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 who were his friends and are still his friends and who have after the date of commission of the offence not indulged into any commission of any further offence, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties qua the FIR in question for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties.
In view thereof, the FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Mohit Mahlawat, petitioner no.2 Rajdeep and petitioner no.3 Avinash Prasad are thus, quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 23, 2021 'Neha Chopra' CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 Page 6 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 26 CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 MOHIT MAHLAWAT & ORS. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
23.11.2021 CW-1 SI Anil Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj, North.
ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings qua FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I identify the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Mohit Mahlawat, petitioner no.2 Rajdeep and petitioner no.3 Avinash Prasad present today in Court as being the three accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR and I also identify the respondent no.2 Pravesh Malik who is also present today in Court as being the complainant thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
23.11.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.11.2021
17:56:55
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 26 CRL.M.C. 2938/2021 MOHIT MAHLAWAT & ORS. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
23.11.2021 CW-1 Mr.Pravesh Malik, S/o Sh.Balram Malik, aged 23 years, R/o A- 67, Masoodpur Village, South West, Delhi.
ON S.A. The compromise deed dated 01.11.2021, my affidavit annexed to the petition and my affidavit of no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dated 09.11.2021 both bear my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
The petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were my friends and are still my friends. A quarrel had taken place on a trivial issue. There has not been any incident thereafter, after the date of the offence.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.132/2019, PS Vasant Kunj, North under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
I have studied till Standard XII and I work with Indiabulls, Delhi. I have made my statement after understanding its implications Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:56:55 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and I do not need to think again.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
23.11.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.11.2021
17:56:55
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.