Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 507/2011
SARDAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.. J.S. Kanwar, Adv.
W.P.(CRL) 507/2011
SARDAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.. J.S. Kanwar, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
CORAM:
Through Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for State with Mr. Avesh, SI, 10, P.S. New Ashok
Nagar.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Crl.M.A. 4520/2011
13.07.2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exception.
Nagar.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Crl.M.A. 4520/2011
13.07.2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exception.
W.P.(CRL) 507/2011
By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 11/2011 under Section 170/384/34 IPC registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi on the complaint ofRespondent No.2 Mahesh Singh.
The allegations as set out against the Petitioners are that the
Petitione~s stood at the red light of Mangal Bazar, Chowk and stopped the vehicle of complainant and told him that they were officials of Delhi Police
W.P.(CRL) 50712011 2011:DHC:18742 and wanted to check the documents ofhis motor cycle. Thereafter they took
Rs. 100/- forcibly from the complainant. Since the complainant doubted the
Petitioners due to their act, he called PCR van by dialing No. 100 and narrated the incident to them that 3 persons who were in civil dress introduced themselves as Police & forcibly took Rs. 100/- from him. He stated that he had initialed on the said note. The Police officials ofthe PCR
Van intercepted the Petitioners who introduced themselves to be Inspector of
Delhi Police even to the PCR officials. On further investigation, it was found out that they were not Police officials and were impersonating. As such, on being searched the ·said note of Rs. 100/- was recovered from
Petitioner No.2. The Petitioners now seek quashing of this FIR on the ground that they have compromised the matter with the complainant/Respondent No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. In my view the present case not only affects the complainant but the society at large and one does not know from how many other public persons the Petitioners have extorted money by impersonating themselves as Police Officials. Such like cases which affect the society at large cannot be permitted to be quashed merely on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. The
W.P.(CRL) 50712011 offences are not compoundable. There is no interest of justice involved in quashing such cases. I do not find it a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 ofthe Constitution.
Petition is dismissed.
JULY 13, 2011 'ga' W.P.(CRL) 50712011 page3 of3
By this petition the Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 11/2011 under Section 170/384/34 IPC registered at P.S. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi on the complaint ofRespondent No.2 Mahesh Singh.
The allegations as set out against the Petitioners are that the
Petitione~s stood at the red light of Mangal Bazar, Chowk and stopped the vehicle of complainant and told him that they were officials of Delhi Police
W.P.(CRL) 50712011 2011:DHC:18742 and wanted to check the documents ofhis motor cycle. Thereafter they took
Rs. 100/- forcibly from the complainant. Since the complainant doubted the
Petitioners due to their act, he called PCR van by dialing No. 100 and narrated the incident to them that 3 persons who were in civil dress introduced themselves as Police & forcibly took Rs. 100/- from him. He stated that he had initialed on the said note. The Police officials ofthe PCR
Van intercepted the Petitioners who introduced themselves to be Inspector of
Delhi Police even to the PCR officials. On further investigation, it was found out that they were not Police officials and were impersonating. As such, on being searched the ·said note of Rs. 100/- was recovered from
Petitioner No.2. The Petitioners now seek quashing of this FIR on the ground that they have compromised the matter with the complainant/Respondent No.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. In my view the present case not only affects the complainant but the society at large and one does not know from how many other public persons the Petitioners have extorted money by impersonating themselves as Police Officials. Such like cases which affect the society at large cannot be permitted to be quashed merely on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise. The
W.P.(CRL) 50712011 offences are not compoundable. There is no interest of justice involved in quashing such cases. I do not find it a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 ofthe Constitution.
Petition is dismissed.
JULY 13, 2011 'ga' W.P.(CRL) 50712011 page3 of3
JUDGMENT