Akshay Tomar and Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0134/2024 under Sections 323/325/506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Timarpur and proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, abovementioned case was registered on complaint of Abhishek Singh (respondent No.2) who alleged that on 26.02.2024 while he was studying in the library, a boy named Akshay Tomar was disturbing his studies. On objecting to the same, Akshay Tomar threatened him to teach a lesson. Later, in evening when complainant/respondent No.2 was having tea alongwith his friends namely Manish Kumar (respondent No.3) and Rajiv Kumar Mishra (respondent No.4) at a shop, they were assaulted by Akshay Tomar, Akash, Ankit @ Angad Tehlan, Vineet and other unknown persons. Accordingly, present FIR was registered on 26.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 4 are students preparing for examinations and the matter has been amicably settled in terms of Settlement Deed dated 05.05.2024. He further submits that offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC are compoundable and points out that as per the status report, Ankit (petitioner No.2) was not found to be involved in the alleged incident, since he was in Meerut, U.P. It is also pointed out that as per status report, Abhishek Singh (respondent No.2) in his supplementary statement stated that he had given name of Akash and Vineet on hearsay, though he is unaware about their particulars or place of residence. Reliance is further placed upon Sunil Tomar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C. No.1741/2021 decided on 12.04.2022, to contend that FIR can be quashed qua petitioners, since role of Ankit (petitioner No.2) has not been substantiated during investigation and the matter has been amicably settled with Akshay Tomar. It is also urged that petitioners who are students are likely to suffer immense hardship in case FIR is kept pending on account of non-traceability or uncertainty of identity of other alleged accused who are unknown to petitioners.

4. Learned APP for the State does not dispute the factual position and submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. Respondents No.2 to 4 also submits that they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed, in view of amicable settlement between the parties.

5. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the categories of cases wherein the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice have been illustrated. It was observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. Consequently, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any distinct features in relation to a particular case and consider whether it is expedient or in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue.

6. In Sunil Tomar v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon Lovely Salhotra & Anr. v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC Online SC 636 and Vijay Kumar Gupta v. State, Government of NCT of Delhi, Crl.M.C. 2289/2013 decided on 09.03.2017 quashed proceedings under Sections 406/420/34 IPC against petitioner therein though the offence was committed in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused who were not a party to the petition. The observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 may be beneficially reproduced for reference:

and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellantsherein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2- herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co- accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie.

7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and quash the FIR qua the appellants- herein.

11. In Vijay Kumar Gupta V. State, Government of NCT of Delhi in Crl.M.C. No.2289/2013 Dated 09.03.2017, in paragraph 7, it is observed and held as under:

7. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalized list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.

8. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be appropriately quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil dispute or offences involving minor incidents, where the complainant/victim also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused.

9. Petitioners and respondent No. 3 are present in person and respondents No.2 & 4 through VC, have been identified by ASI/IO Raj Kumar, P.S. Timarpur. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 to 4 submit that since all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon and they have no further grievance in this regard.

10. In the present case, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 to 4 are students and intend to put quietus to the proceedings. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioners has been brought to the notice of this Court.