Full Text
Translation output
#21
% 22.07.2011
Present: Petitioner in person along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Harshvardhan Roy,Advocate for respondent No.2
+Crl.M.C. No. 854/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.3214/2011(stay)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.358/2006 under Sections 354/452 IPC registered at P.S. Bawana on the
~ complaint of respondent No.2.
The reason for seeking quashing is that the parties have amicably settled the matter and respondent No.2 does not wish the petitioner to be prosecuted on the basis of her complaint and she has no objection to the quashing of FIR. It is well settled that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the basis of settlement are not fettered by Section 320 Cr.P.C. which provides for the category of offences which can be compounded by the parties to a criminal proceeding, with or without the permission of the Court. This, however, does not mean
• that every criminal case, on the basis of compromise can be quashed.
While considering the plea for quashing of FIR on account of settlement, the court is required to look into the allegations and if the facts constituting the offence are of purely personal nature, then the High Court may exercise its discretion to quash the FIR. But while doing so, the Court is supposed to consider whether such quashing of FIR is in the interest of the society.
2011:DHC:10501
In the instant case, allegations in the FIR are that on 9th S2er, 2006 at about 10 p.m. in the night, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 by climbing over the wall but on respondent
No.2 raising alarm, he abused her and fled away. Again on 12th September, 2006 at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 by scaling the wall of her house and started teasing her.
He tried to molest her and pressed her breast. In the meanwhile, husband of respondent No.2 came and rescued her from the petitioner. The petitioner abused them and fled away. If the aforesaid allegations are true, then the petitioner obviously is a person with a perverted mind and he is a threat to women. Such like persons are a menace to the society and they are required to be dealt with a deft hand to make the city secure for females.
·Therefore, taking into account the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
JULY 22,2011 pst
~~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:10501
% 22.07.2011
Present: Petitioner in person along with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Harshvardhan Roy,Advocate for respondent No.2
+Crl.M.C. No. 854/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.3214/2011(stay)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.358/2006 under Sections 354/452 IPC registered at P.S. Bawana on the
~ complaint of respondent No.2.
The reason for seeking quashing is that the parties have amicably settled the matter and respondent No.2 does not wish the petitioner to be prosecuted on the basis of her complaint and she has no objection to the quashing of FIR. It is well settled that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the basis of settlement are not fettered by Section 320 Cr.P.C. which provides for the category of offences which can be compounded by the parties to a criminal proceeding, with or without the permission of the Court. This, however, does not mean
• that every criminal case, on the basis of compromise can be quashed.
While considering the plea for quashing of FIR on account of settlement, the court is required to look into the allegations and if the facts constituting the offence are of purely personal nature, then the High Court may exercise its discretion to quash the FIR. But while doing so, the Court is supposed to consider whether such quashing of FIR is in the interest of the society.
2011:DHC:10501
In the instant case, allegations in the FIR are that on 9th S2er, 2006 at about 10 p.m. in the night, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 by climbing over the wall but on respondent
No.2 raising alarm, he abused her and fled away. Again on 12th September, 2006 at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of respondent No.2 by scaling the wall of her house and started teasing her.
He tried to molest her and pressed her breast. In the meanwhile, husband of respondent No.2 came and rescued her from the petitioner. The petitioner abused them and fled away. If the aforesaid allegations are true, then the petitioner obviously is a person with a perverted mind and he is a threat to women. Such like persons are a menace to the society and they are required to be dealt with a deft hand to make the city secure for females.
·Therefore, taking into account the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
JULY 22,2011 pst
~~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:10501
JUDGMENT