Delhi High Court - Orders
Pardeep Kumar Jha & Ors vs State Gnctd & Ors on 17 February, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 218/2022 & CRL.M.A. 895/2022
PARDEEP KUMAR JHA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.K. Kaushik (Enrol No.
D/411/84), Mr. Abhinav Kaushik and
Mr. C.P. Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE GNCTD & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State
with SI Mohit, P.S. Prem Nagar.
Mr. Amit Garg (Enrol. No.PH-
1050/2019) and Ms. Nancy Garg,
Advocates for R-2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 17.02.2022
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 0686/2021 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. All the petitioners are present before this Court and have been identified by their counsel Mr. G.K. Kaushik, Advocate and Investigating Officer SI Mohit from Police Station Prem Nagar. Respondents No. 2 to 5 are also present in the Court and have been identified by their counsel Mr. Amit Garg, Advocate and the Investigating Officer.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 218/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:19.02.2022 13:00:383. The facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondents are neighbours and fought with each other over a petty issue of throwing garbage at a vacant plot by the petitioners which rolled over in front of the house of the respondents. Following which scuffle ensued between the parties and both suffered injuries. The complainant/respondent no. 2 gave her statement on the basis of which instant FIR was registered on 1st November 2021.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that with the intervention of common friend, relatives, and respectable persons of the society the parties have entered into a compromise and executed a Compromise Deed dated 4th January 2022 which is annexed to the petition as Annexure C. The terms and conditions of the settlement have been mentioned from paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Compromise Deed. Respondents no. 2 to 5 had accepted the apology tendered by the petitioners and have agreed to cooperate with the petitioners in quashing of the instant FIR by executing Affidavit cum NOC's, and the same are annexed to the petition as Annexure D (colly) It is therefore prayed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that the instant FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State submitted that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The instant criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 218/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:19.02.2022 13:00:38 society especially when there is a settlement/compromise between victim and accused. In such cases, it is settled law that High Court is also required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the accused in order to ascertain that the settlement has been entered into by his own free will and has not been imposed upon him by the petitioner or any person related to him. In the present case, the respondents no. 2 to 5 are present in Court and have categorically stated that they have entered into compromise and settled the entire disputes amicably with petitioners on their own free will and without any pressure or coercion.
8. In the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if for purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, has held that criminal proceedings on FIR or complaint can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non-compoundable offences if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed. In the instant case, as stated above, the parties have reached on the compromise and amicably settled the entire disputes without any pressure.
10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 218/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:19.02.2022 13:00:38Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 0686/2021 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Rohini for offences punishable under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, subject to costs.
11. The petitioners are directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- with Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, Account No. 90552010165915, Canara Bank (IFSC Code: CNRB0019055) within a period of seven days. After payment of aforesaid amount, receipt shall be deposited with the Investigating Officer.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 17, 2022 Aj/ct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 218/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:19.02.2022 13:00:38