Vinod Kumar & Anr v. State & Anr

ORDER o/"

30.10.2012

¶1These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitutionof India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.173/2012under Section308/323/324/341/34IPC (Section307 IPC was addedby the lO lateron) and FIRNo.174/2012underSection308 IPC both registered at P.S. Geeta Colony Delhi in cross cases and consequential proceedingsarisingtherefrom.

¶2The facts leadingto the registrationofthe caseFIRNo.173/2012P.S. Geeta Colony Delhi are that on 21.06.2012 at around 10:00 PM when respondentNo. 2came to his house saw that petitionerNos. 1to 3were misbehaving and beating her daughter Divya. When respondent No.2 intervenedand protested,they startedbeating him also. In the meantime, Divyacalledthe otherfamilymembersand on seeingthem, petitionerNos. 1and 2took out Imivesand gave knifeblowsto respondentNo.4. Whenthe wife and daughtersof respondentNo.2 tried to intervene,petitionersgave loiife and fist blows to them. RespondentNo. 7 calledPCR. FIR was got registeredand all the injuredweretakento the hospital.

¶3The facts leadingto the registrationofthe case FIRNo.174/2012P.S. GeetaColonyDelhi are that on 21.06.2012at around 10:00PM respondent No. 2 saw from his house that petitionerBrijesh was standingin front of his house, who had a bad eye on his sister Shilpi and had misbehavedwithher in the past. When respondent No.2 asked Brijeshas to why he was standingthere, petitionerBrijeshstartedabusinghim, the conversationbetweenpetitionerand respondentNo. 2turned into an ugly quarreland petitionercamewithaknifeand attackedon his handand head. He managedto escapeand informedPGR. ThereafterrespondentNo. 2was talccnto the hospitalandonhis statementFIRNo.174/2012was registered.

¶4It has been stated that both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlementout oftheirown sweetwill,withoutany pressureand force from any corner and complainant/Vinod Kumar in W.P.(Crl.)1340/2012and Complainant/PanditHeera Lai Goswami in W.P.(Grl.) 1344/2012do not wish to pursuethe criminalcases and submittedthat the said FIRs and all proceedingsemanatingtherefrom may be quashed. ACompromiseDeed dated04.09.2012to this effect is also placedon recordto affirmthe factum ofsettlementarrivedatbetweenthe parties.

¶5Offences punishable under Sections 307/308 IPC are non-compoundableoffences.In the latestdecisionin the case of Gian Singhv StateofPunjab&Anr. MANU/SC/078I/2012decidedon 24.09.2012,the threeJudgesBenchofthe SupremeCourtdealingwiththe issueofquashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emergesfrom the above discussioncan he summarisedthus: thepowerofthe High Courtin quashingacriminal proceedingorFIR or complaintin exerciseofits inherentjurisdiction is distinctand differentfrom thepowergiven to a criminalcourtfor compoundingthe offences Under Section320 ofthe Code. Inherent poweris ofwideplenitudewith no statutorylimitationbut it has to be exercisedin accordwith the guidelineengraftedin suchpowerviz, (i) to securethe ends ofjusticeor (ii) to preventabuseoftheprocessoj any Court. In what casespower to quash the criminalproceedingor complaintor F.I.R may be exercisedwhere the offenderand victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstancesof each case and no category can be prescribed However, before exerciseofsuchpower, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravityor offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittinglyquashedeven though the victim or victim'sfamilyandthe offenderhavesettledthe dispute.Suchoffences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,any compromisebetweenthe victimandoffenderin relation to the offences under specialstatutes like Preventionof Corruption Actor the offencescommittedbypublicservantswhileworkingin that capacity etc; cannotprovidefor any basis for quashing criminal proceedingsinvolvingsuch offences. But the criminalcases having overwhelminglyandpre-dominatinglycivilfavourstandon different footingfor thepurposesofquashing,particularlythe offencesarising from commercial,financial,mercantile,civil,partnershipor such like transactionsor the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or thefamilydisputeswherethe wrongis basicallyprivate or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this categoryof cases. High Court may quash criminal proceedingsif in its view, because of the compromisebetween the offenderand victim, thepossibilityofconvictionis remoteand bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppressionandprejudiceand extreme injusticewould be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despitefull and complete settlementand compromisewith the victim. In otherwords, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuationofthe criminalproceedingwouldtantamountto abuseof processoflaw despitesettlementand compromisebetweenthe victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriatethat criminalcase is put to an end and ifthe answer to the above question(s)is in affirmative,the High CourtMl be well withinitsjurisdictionto quashthe criminalproceeding."

¶6Learned counsel for the petitionersin both the petitionssubmitthat the matter in dispute has been amicablysettledand no purpose would be served in prosecutingthe petitionersin both the FIRs, therefore,the FIRs may be quashed.

¶7Complainantsin boththe FIRs also affirmthatthe partieshave settled the matteramicablyand they are not interestedin prosecutingthe petitioners and submitthatthe saidFIRs and all proceedingsemanatingtherefrommay be quashed.

¶8In view of the aforesaidamicablesettlementarrived at betweenthe parties,Iam ofthe consideredviewthat no usefulpurposewouldbe served by continuingthe criminalproceedingsagainstthe petitioners,which will onlybe an exercisein futileandwastageofprecioustimeofthe Court.

¶9Accordingly,boththe petitionsare allowed. FIRNo.173/2012under Section 308/307/323/324/341/34IPG and FIR No.174/2012under Section 308 both registeredat P.S. Geeta Golony, Delhi and all the proceedings arisingtherefromare herebyquashed.

¶10BailAppUcationNo. 1394/2012has also beenfiledunderSection438 Gr.P.G. for anticipatorybail of Tilak Ram @Kalu. As the FIRs already stand quashed,the presentbail applicationhas become infructuousand is disposedof accordingly.

¶11Dasti. OCTOBER 30, 2012 'mr' TIBHARANI, J

\ o * . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1340/2012 BRIJESH@SUNNY Petitioner Through: Mr.SanjeevRajpal,Advocatefor Mr. SanjayMisra, Advocate. versus STATE&ANR. Respondent Through: Ms.ManviPriyaAdvocatefor Mr.DayanKrishnan,ASC for State. Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate for R-2. + W.P.(CRL)1344/2012 VINODKUMAR&ANR. Petitioner ' Through: Mr.V.K.Sharma,Advocate versus STATE&ANR. Respondent Through: Mr.SaleemAhmed,ASC with Ms.Cham Dalai, Advocate. SI R.N. Pathak, P.S. Geeta Colony. + BAILAPPLN. 1394/2012 TILAKRAM @KALU Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Sharma,Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through: Ms.RajdipaBehura,APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHARANI