Prem Kumar & Anr. v. State & Ors.

1. This is a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No.69/2018 under Sections 289/323/337/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jagat Puri.

2. Facts, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant Ms. Monika Bhatia alleging that the pet dog of the petitioner bit her younger daughter and when she raised an objection, the petitioner assaulted her and the members of her family. An investigation was VERMA conducted and the chargesheet has already been filed under Sections 289/323/337/34 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now with the intervention of the well-wishers and their friends, the parties have reached on an amicable settlement. In the settlement, it has been agreed that both parties shall make harmony in the area and have no grievances against each other.

4. Inherent powers under Section 482 confers power to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5. In the landmark judgment of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the VERMA criminal case would put the Accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

6. The present case is that of a dispute between the neighbours. The parties are present in Court and have duly been identified by the IO. The complainant has stated that both parties have been residing adjacent to each other for the last about 20 years. She states that she has graciously forgiven the accused and parties are now having cordial relations. The petitioner/accused, in court, has undertaken that he will be careful in nature regarding the maintenance of dogs. It is pertinent to note that except Section 289, all other offences are bailable in nature.

7. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances and the fact that the parties are neighbours and have amicably decided to settle the matter, in my considerable opinion no purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to be continued. Accordingly, the case FIR No.69/2018 under Sections 289/323/337/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jagat Puriand all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. However, for the exchequer on the system, the petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to Advocate Welfare Fund, High Court of Delhi within two weeks.

8. The present petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J DECEMBER 13, 2022 st.. VERMA