Delhi High Court - Orders
Anubhava Mittal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 31 August, 2022
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4167/2022
ANUBHAVA MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pragya Agrawal and Ms. Anjali
Gupta, Advocates with petitioner in
person.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with
SI Shikshit Kumar, P.S. Sarojini
Nagar.
Mr. Neeraj, Advocate for R-2. (Mob.
No. 8930880880)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
ORDER
% 31.08.2022
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 dated 10.06.2014 registered under sections 279/337 IPC at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, South Delhi.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Hitesh Vali, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 2 is not present in person but is represented by Mr. Neeraj, Advocate who accepts notice on her behalf.
4. The perusal of FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 reflects that it was got registered on the basis of complaint made by the respondent no. 2 pertaining to the accident happened on 10.06.2014 involving the vehicle bearing registration No. DL3SCQ3210 which was being driven by the petitioner at Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:05.09.2022 17:38:02 that time. The petitioner is identified by the Investigating Officer SI Shikshit Kumar, P.S. Sarojini Nagar. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under sections 279/338 IPC and the trial is stated to be pending before the Court of Shri Dev Saroha, MM-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
5. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have settled their disputes amicably and out of their settlement, the offence punishable under section 338 IPC has already been compounded before the concerned trial Court vide proceedings dated 11.04.2022 and have settled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- out of which, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 25,000/- before the concerned trial Court. The petitioner also paid the balance settled amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash to the counsel for the respondent no. 2, who on instructions of respondent no. 2, accepts Rs.25,000/- on behalf of respondent no. 2.
6. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have already compounded with each-other for offence punishable under section 338 IPC but the offence punishable under section 279 IPC is non-compoundable as such, the present petition be allowed and FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 dated 10.06.2014 alongwith consequential proceedings including judicial proceedings be quashed.
7. The counsel for the respondent no. 2 stated that he does not have any objection if the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 dated 10.06.2014 is quashed as the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have already settled their disputes.
8. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1/State also stated that under given facts and circumstances of the case, he does not have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:05.09.2022 17:38:02 any objection if the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 dated 10.06.2014 is quashed.
9. The Supreme Court continuously observed that the extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,(2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:-
16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists.
10. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 279/338 IPC. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have already compounded with each-other and the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent no. 2 out of which, the petitioner has already Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:05.09.2022 17:38:02 paid Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent no. 2 and the balance settled amount of Rs. 25,000/- has also been paid to the counsel for the respondent no. 2.
11. After considering all facts and in the interest of justice, the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing No. 0339/2014 dated 10.06.2014 registered at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, South Delhi is quashed alongwith consequential proceedings including judicial proceedings pending in the Court of Shri Dev Saroha, MM-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/Successor Court.
12. The present petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J AUGUST 31, 2022 N/SD Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:05.09.2022 17:38:02