Delhi High Court
Om Prakash & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 6 December, 2007
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 3038-44/2006
% Date of Decision: 6th December, 2007
# Om Prakash & Ors. .....Petitioners
! Through Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate for
petitioner nos. 1-6
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for
petitioner no. 7.
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .....Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
AND
Crl. M.C. No. 3069-70/2006
# Perma Ram & Anr. .....Petitioners
! Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for petitioner no. 1.
Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate for
petitioner no. 2
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
By way of these petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing of two FIRs
registered against them in respect of the same incident which took place on
11.10.2001 as well as the on going trial against them. FIR no. 845/2001 under
Sections 307/323 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC.' in short), Police Station Dabri, is the
subject matter of Crl.M.C. No. 3069-70/2006 registered against the petitioner no.
1 of that case at the instance of petitioner no. 2-complainant and FIR no.
846/2001 under Sections 147/148/149/308/452/323/427 I.P.C. in Crl.M.C. No.
3038-44/2006 was also registered at Police Station Dabri against petitioners no.
1-6 at the instance of petitioner no. 7 of the petition. The two cases pending in
Sessions Court are cross-cases. Since the incident which led to the registration of
two cross cases is the same and these petitions, which have been filed because of
the settlement between the two groups, were heard together, I propose to dispose
them of by this common order.
2. Facts of the two cases, in the nutshell, are that on the day of incident while
the work of laying water pipeline was in progress in front of the house of petitioner
no. 1 Perma Ram in Crl. M.C. no. 3069-70/2006, who is also petitioner no. 7 in the
other petition, some heated arguments took place between him and his co-
petitioners which led to a tiff. During the fight both the parties received some
injuries.
3. After investigating the matter the police filed two separate charge-sheets
before the concerned court in respect of both the FIRs. During the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, both the parties resolved their disputes and arrived at an
amicable settlement with the intervention of their friends and well wishers and
thereafter these petitions were filed for quashing of both the FIRs and the two
cases pending in the Sessions Court. Memorandum of Understanding dated
16.05.2006 has been placed on record.
4. Notices of the petitions were given to the State and the parties appeared in
person also on 29-10-2007 before this Court and re-affirmed that whatever they
have pleaded in the petitions that dispute giving rise to the present controversy had
been amicably resolved and so they were no more interested in pursuing the cases
against each other was correct. Affidavits of all the petitioners have also been filed
affirming the contents of the petitions.
5. Learned APP for the State, however, opposed quashing of the FIRs and the
pending cases on the ground that Section 308 I.P.C. has been invoked against the
accused persons which offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In
reply to this objection learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that this
Court has been quashing cases even in respect of offences under Section 307
I.P.C. whenever the parties have reported settlement and that in any case in both
these cases the injuries sustained by the parties were simple in nature and not on
any vital part of the body of any of the injured.
6. It is now well settled that cases even in respect of those offences which are
not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. can be quashed if it is felt by the
Court while dealing with a quashing petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. that it would
secure the ends of justice if the FIR and criminal proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed and continuation of the investigation/criminal proceedings would amount
to abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to one
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "B.S.Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Anr.", AIR 2003 SC 1386 where it has been so held. Further, in a recent case
decided by this Court on 03.09.2007 "Basara & Ors. v. State & Anr." Crl. M.C. No.
6621-24/2006 and in an earlier judgment also of this Court in "Gurcharan Singh v.
The State & Anr." 1998 Cri.l.J. 3780 the proceedings pending in the Court for the
offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. were quashed in view of the
compromise between the parties. Since both the parties in these petitions are
neighbours living in the same locality and they have settled the dispute amongst
themselves for bringing about peace and harmony in their locality, no fruitful
purpose would be served if the trial of the accused in the two cases goes on and
the relief of quashing of the criminal proceedings cannot be refused just because
Section 308 I.P.C. is involved in the cases.
8. In view of the foregoing and considering the fact that this Court itself in its
earlier decisions, as noted above, has been allowing petitions for quashing of the
FIRs on the basis of the settlement between the parties even in cases where
allegations of serious nature inviting punishment upto imprisonment for life were
levelled against the accused, I am inclined to allow these petitions as it would
amount to abuse of the process of law if the two cases are allowed to continue.
Consequently FIRs no. 845/2001 and 846/2001 registered at Police Station Dabri
on 11-10-2001 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed.
P.K.BHASIN,
December 6, 2007
sh
