Delhi High Court
Daulat Zia vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998VAD(DELHI)627, 1998(4)CRIMES516, 74(1998)DLT259, 1998(46)DRJ171
Author: N.G. Nandi
Bench: N.G. Nandi
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 25/98, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on the complaint of respondent No. 3 and the proceedings taken subsequent thereto including the challan.
2. The FIR was registered on the statement made by respondent No. 3 Abdul Hanan regarding incident dated 10.1.1997. It was stated that his father is a Diplomat in the Afghan Embassy. About 6-7 months back, their car, which was parked outside their house was burnt by somebody. On person known to him, who was also a resident of Afghan used to come from the Ramesh Market, Garhi to meet the Afghani person. He stated that on 10.1.1998 at about 6 p.m., he along with his cousin Javed (respondent No. 2) went to Ramesh Market to make enquiry into the burning of car. The petitioner met them. On enquiry the petitioner started abusing them and suddenly took out a knife and assaulted them, as a result thereof they received injuries.
3. On the basis of the above statement, FIR for offence under Section 307 IPC was registered, which offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
4. It is stated in the petition that the parties hail from Afghanistan and with the intervention of common friends and relatives, they have amicably resolved their differences. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have also expressed their desire not to pursue their compliant. This petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings and permitting the parties to compound the offence, as the offence is not compoundable. Compromise deed has also been filed on record along with the affidavits of the petitioner as well as of respondents No. 2 and 3, who admitted the factum of compromise and expressed their desire not to pursue with their complaint.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Devinder Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, permission to compound the offence under Section 326 IPC, which is not compoundable, was granted, in view of the reasons that the parties had reconciled their differences voluntarily, which reconciliation had been arrived at by the intervention of well wishers and parties hailed from the same locality. In the case of Mahesh Chand and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, , prayer was for compounding of offence under Section 307 IPC. Accused were acquitted by the Trial Court but were convicted by the High Court. Parties had prayed before the Supreme Court to treat the case as special case and grant permission to compound. In the facts of that case and that one of the accused was a Lawyer practicing in lower Courts and the fact that counter case arising out of the same transaction had already been compromised, the Supreme Court granted permission to compound the offence.
6. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the two cases aforementioned and for the reason that the parties are Afghan nationals, who have amicably settled their differences and want to live in peace without any ill-will or bad blood and respondents No. 2 and 3 do not wish to pursue their complaint, we allow the petition and grant the requisite permission to compound. Petitioner is present in person. Respondents 2 and 3 are also present who have been identified by their Counsel in the presence of the Investigating Officer. They admit the factum of compromise. Respondents 2 and 3 say that they do not want any action as regards the incident of 10.1.1998. Resultantly, the proceedings pending in the Court below, arising out of FIR No. 25 of 1998 for the offence under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi including the FIR are quashed and set aside.