Full Text
Translation output
/ $-40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 CRL.M.A. 19773/2017
HARENDER & ORS Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Naveen, Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Advs. with petitioners
CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 CRL.M.A. 19773/2017
HARENDER & ORS Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Naveen, Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Advs. with petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR Respondent
Through Learned APP forthe State withASI .
Manveer Singh, PS Chhawla.
Respondents in person.
$-43
Through Learned APP forthe State withASI .
Manveer Singh, PS Chhawla.
Respondents in person.
$-43
CRL.M.C. 4998/2017
- KURERAM&ORS .....Petitioner
Through Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Advs. with petitioners
- KURERAM&ORS .....Petitioner
Through Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Mr. Dheeraj Gautam, Advs. with petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondent
Through Learned APP for the State withASI Manveer Singh, PS Chhawla.
Respondents in person.
Through Learned APP for the State withASI Manveer Singh, PS Chhawla.
Respondents in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
' % 30.11.2017 Vide the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017, the petitioner no. 1 Harender s/o Sh.
Umrao Singh, petitioner no. 2 Rajender s/o Sh. Umrao Singh and petitioner no. 3 Sh. Narayan Singh s/o Sh. Umrao Singh seek quashing of FIR NO. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/354/34 ofthe
Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against them submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between them and the respondent no. 2
Sunder s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, respondent no. 3 Kure Ram s/o Sh. Nathu Ram
2017:DHC:8287 [p and respondentno. 4 Manjeets/o Kure Ram are relatedto them.
On the other hand, the respondent no. 2 Sunder s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, the respondent no. 3 Kure Ram s/p Sh. Nathu Ram and the respondent no. 4
Manjeet s/o Kure Ram to CRL.M.C. 4989/2017, who are arrayed as the petitioner 1 Kure Ram s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, the petitioner no. 2 Surender s/o
Sh. Nathu, the petitioner no. 3 Sh. Sandeep s/o Sh. Kure Ram and Sh.
Manjeet s/o Sh. Kure Ram in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 have sought quashing of
FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is indicated to be registered on the complaint of the Deepak s/o Narayan Singh arrayed as respondent no. 2 in
Crl. M.C. 4998/17..
Vide the petition Crl. M.C. 4998/17 also it has been submitted that a settlement has been arrived k\ between the parties, who are related to each other and seek quashing of the FIR. It has been submitted by both the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing ofFIR No. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seekingquashing of the FIRNo.
184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 oftheIndian Penal
Code, 1860 arising out ofthe same incident to the effect that a Compromise
Deed dated 19.08.2017 is placed on record in both the petitions i.e.
EX.CW2/B in each of them, which the respondent to both the petitions have stated to have signed voluntarily. The complainant and the injured in both the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seek quashing of FIRNo. 185/2014, registered at
PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the complainant and the injured in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections
308/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have testified to the effect that they do not oppose the prayer made in the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing of FIR No. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under
Sections 308/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C.
4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under
Sections 308/323/341/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.
State ofPunjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it has been observed to the effect: -
"58... No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled - the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have, been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences ofmental depravity under IPC or offences ofmoral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi,
' % 30.11.2017 Vide the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017, the petitioner no. 1 Harender s/o Sh.
Umrao Singh, petitioner no. 2 Rajender s/o Sh. Umrao Singh and petitioner no. 3 Sh. Narayan Singh s/o Sh. Umrao Singh seek quashing of FIR NO. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/354/34 ofthe
Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against them submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between them and the respondent no. 2
Sunder s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, respondent no. 3 Kure Ram s/o Sh. Nathu Ram
2017:DHC:8287 [p and respondentno. 4 Manjeets/o Kure Ram are relatedto them.
On the other hand, the respondent no. 2 Sunder s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, the respondent no. 3 Kure Ram s/p Sh. Nathu Ram and the respondent no. 4
Manjeet s/o Kure Ram to CRL.M.C. 4989/2017, who are arrayed as the petitioner 1 Kure Ram s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, the petitioner no. 2 Surender s/o
Sh. Nathu, the petitioner no. 3 Sh. Sandeep s/o Sh. Kure Ram and Sh.
Manjeet s/o Sh. Kure Ram in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 have sought quashing of
FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is indicated to be registered on the complaint of the Deepak s/o Narayan Singh arrayed as respondent no. 2 in
Crl. M.C. 4998/17..
Vide the petition Crl. M.C. 4998/17 also it has been submitted that a settlement has been arrived k\ between the parties, who are related to each other and seek quashing of the FIR. It has been submitted by both the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing ofFIR No. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seekingquashing of the FIRNo.
184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 oftheIndian Penal
Code, 1860 arising out ofthe same incident to the effect that a Compromise
Deed dated 19.08.2017 is placed on record in both the petitions i.e.
EX.CW2/B in each of them, which the respondent to both the petitions have stated to have signed voluntarily. The complainant and the injured in both the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seek quashing of FIRNo. 185/2014, registered at
PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the complainant and the injured in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections
308/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have testified to the effect that they do not oppose the prayer made in the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing of FIR No. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under
Sections 308/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C.
4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under
Sections 308/323/341/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.
State ofPunjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it has been observed to the effect: -
"58... No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled - the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have, been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences ofmental depravity under IPC or offences ofmoral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi,
ORDER
(2003) 4 see 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 andManoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC i.]" (emphasis supplied) thus it is considered appropriate in the interest of justice that the prayer, made by the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing of FIR No. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are allowed, which are thus accordingly allowed, and the CRL.M.C. 4989/2017 seeking quashing of FIR NO. 185/2014, registered at PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/34 of thq Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in Crl. M.C. 4998/17 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 184/14, PS Chhawla, under Sections 308/323/325/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefore are quashed. The petition is disposed of ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 30, 2017