Dinesh Bhardwaj & Ors v. The State of Delhi & Ors

1. Thfe presentpetitionuiiiJr slptp 482 Cr.P.C. has|been filed by ft.H •, • T 1 1- T^il j - A j the petitKMers, namely,|iMi|m^|va^Lokesh Bhardwaj, Azad Bhardwaj ^and of FIR No.1006/20ll-a|i^S^3.2013• 365/307/34 IPC registered at Pol^^A^a^MT^^el^^oift^^^l^asis of the settlement -53^' arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2,. namely, Praveen Kumar.

2. The factual matrix ofthe present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant, namely, Praveen Kumar on the allegationthat he was doing property dealing work. On 23.12.2013 at about07.00 p.m. whenhe was aboutto get in his car outside his office for going to his house, his neighbourers Dinesh Bhardwaj andLokesh Bhardwaj came on a motorcycle. Accused Dinesh abused the Crl.M.C. 1689/2016 Page 1 of[5] 2016:DHC:9034 complainant and caught hold of him from his neck. Accused Lokesh hit some iron object on the head of the complainant. In the meanwhile, one Endeavour car of white colour came there out of which accused Azad Bhardwaj, Raja and their associates got down. They were having sticks in their hands and started beating the complainant. The complainant was forcibly put in the rear of the car. The complainant became unconscious due to injuries. When the complainant regained consciousness, he found himself in the car. He was again given beatingsiyr^heiraccmse^ due to which he became unconsdibust^j^A^en he Tegainbd ^donscipusness, he found himselfadrmrfpd^h SRH,€&s||i|^|la. \ of by the'' ?^]^ainant to the ^ ofthepresent^^^jifegistered. ^ • I ^4iDlJ.1l

3. Later on, petitioners andlre'spondent no.2 mutually settled their past disputes, difference||d^:|'P^aee^^ against eaclj|other and the petitioners"^hus, MM^iie%relenfcp^ili?^n^i^^ ofthe FIR mquestion.

4. It is not 'Mi^'^-di^ute^^l that^as^'.pef^ the MLC of the injured/complainant PraveeifT^fh^rhe had had received various injuries on his head. The doctor opined the nature of injuries sustained by the injured as grievous.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thatheinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public Crl.M.C. 1689/2016 Page 2 of[5] servants while working in their official capacity, cannot be quashed even though victim or victims family andthe offender have settled the dispute. Such offenecs are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. On similar point, reliance can be placed on NarinderSingh v. StateofPunjab (2014) 6SCC466in which it was further observed that offences under Section 307 IPG would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Further 'm/State ofRajasthan v. ShambhuKewat (2014) 4 SCC iT' mm \ 149 it was observed as under % ff - Va -W s.(/ "15. We are not prepared to say that the (j crime alleged to have been committed by the fj accused persons was a crime against an S individual, on the other hand it was a crime against the society at large. Criminal law is ^C^designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of conduct and activities within the society. Why Section 307 IPG is held to be non-compoundable, is because the Code has identified which conduct should be brought within the ambit of noncompoundable offences. Such provisions are not meant just to protect the individual but the society as a whole. The High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person and since the accused persons (sic victims) had received the monetary compensation and settled the matter, the crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger Crl.M.C. 1689/2016 objective to achieve, that is, safety and protection ofthe people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by anyone and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful coexistence and welfare ofthe society at large." fc... This Court further obseryesKthat the Fwin the present case has been registeredjhnder iS)s'e|i.0nst^4,63fMT/34 IRp.which clearly are 'mmm... ^ offences agai^t the society':|atAl||g^nd not privatcd'n pature. Perusal ofthe medical record ofthe' m|^ije)d/domplainant also establishes that I'i y II I'd' II |j the injure^d has suffered in®des\|pli his head. As observed in the aforesaid cases i.e..Marmder^'SmsMjmpra), Shambhu Kewat (supra) and Gian StngyC^mM, 6¥fenGis^Which^fe^<hein:ou and against the \\ "'V society shall nbt.>ber,eompoundeds=hdfing regdfd^o nature of injuries and the magnitude "'bf:::;ifepaet-=GVi^;^ough the victims and the offenders have compromised their matter and seek the quashing ofthe FIR in the case. Applying the ratio/principle laid down in the said cases to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the injuries inflicted on the complainant were serious in nature. The accused persons caused the said injuries with iron rod/pipe which in itself is sufficient to cause death of a person if hit at the vitral parts of the body. r !r

8. In the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinionthat the petitioners have failed to establish any cogent reason to quash the FIR No.1006/2013 dated 24.12.2013, under Sections 365/307/34 IPG registered at Police Station Narela.

9. Thepetition is accordingly dismissed. JULY 08, 2016 dd llR f Oiy J*' M.A •r ft (P.S|.TEjrf) JUDGE I I Page 5 of[5]