Delhi High Court
Najibur Rahman @ Mujibur Rehman & ... vs State & Ors. on 23 January, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C. 247/2012
Date of Decision: 23.01.2012
NAJIBUR RAHMAN @ MUJIBUR REHMAN & ANR.
...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ...... RESPODNENTS
Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No. 896/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 247/2012 & Crl.M.A. 897/2012
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.258/2010 under Section 307/34 IPC
registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla.
2. The petitioners and respondents are workers at factories located opposite
each other at Daya Basti, Delhi. The allegations in the said FIR are that
on 24.07.2010 at about 2.30. p.m., the respondents were loading their
van which was objected to, by the petitioners. The respondents protested
against the behavior of the petitioners. Enraged by this the petitioners
started beating the respondents with fists and legs and then on
instigation by Rahman (petitioner no.1), one of his two associates,
attacked the respondents with a knife, with the intention to kill them.
Respondent no. 2 sustained injury at his chest and stomach and
respondent no.5 sustained injury on his chest.
3. Thereafter the petitioners fled from the spot and an FIR was registered
by the police on the complaint of the respondents. The trial of the case
has started in the court of ASJ and charges have been framed against the
petitioners. Prosecution evidence has been called on the next date of
hearing. During the course of the proceedings, a settlement is stated to
have been reached at by the parties on 23.09.2011 and consequently the
present petition has been advanced by the petitioner for quashing of the
FIR.
4. The compounding of certain offences punishable under Indian Penal
Code is governed by Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-
section (1) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the
table provided there under can be compounded by the persons
mentioned in column 3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2)
provides that the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded
by the victim with the permission of the court. As against this, sub-
section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded
except as provided by this section". In view of the aforesaid legislative
mandate, only the offences which are covered by Table 1 or Table 2 as
stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable
under IPC could not be compounded.
5. An offence under Section 307 IPC, is not covered under the scheme of
Section 320 of the Code, and is hence non-compoundable. But under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the exercise of its inherent powers, this court is
within its power to quash the FIR even in the offences not covered under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. .In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC
1386, it was held by Supreme Court that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers of the High Court to quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint even in non-compoundable offences.
Thus, there is no iota of doubt regarding the power enjoyed by this court
to quash the FIR in non-compoundable offences.
6. The only question that remains is whether such quashing would be in the
interest of justice or not? Crimes are considered offenses against the
state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person
might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offence to
everyone in society. That is the reason why crimes are prosecuted by
the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a
representative of the state. The maintenance of peace is of utmost
importance but it has to be weighed carefully on the scales of justice.
The compounding of a serious offence like murder or an attempt to
murder is not to be allowed in a mechanical manner or as a matter of
routine, but only after careful consideration of the facts and
circumstances of each case which are bound to vary. In the case of
Y.Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. JT (1987) 2 SC 361, the Supreme Court
has specifically observed that the said case "shall not be treated as a
precedent".
7. Coming to the facts before us, it is duly noted that the attack on the
respondents was without any provocation and the respondents were not
in possession of any weapon that could have lead to the apprehension in
the minds of the petitioners regarding their own safety. The attack on the
respondents was made with a deadly weapon with an intention to kill.
This fact is evident on the scrutiny of wounds suffered by respondent
no. 2 and 5. According to the MLC No. 6240/10 and 6235/10 ,
respondent no.2 suffered 5-6 cm long vertical incised wound on left side
of the chest and respondent no. 5 suffered three incised wound and sharp
injury in the following manner:
i. Chest-15* ½ cm.
ii. Chest-15* ½ cm.
iii. (L) Abdomen-5*1/2 cm.
8. It can be seen from the nature of such injuries inflicted upon the
respondents, that they have narrowly escaped death and these injuries
could have proved fatal for them. In view of such a pre meditated assault
by the petitioners, compounding of the offence will be a travesty of
justice and will shake the faith of the peace loving society.
9. Although, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, but
that itself is not a valid ground for overlooking the serious offence
committed by the petitioners with utter disregard to the law of the land.
It has been observed that in most of the cases, compromises are effected
by the victims due to pressure from the accused persons or because they
are reluctant to be involved in the litigation, generally stretching over a
period of time. Fear of retaliation also deters victims or witnesses of
crimes from taking any action. Even in policed societies, fear may
inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-operating in a trial. Thus,
the discretion in compounding the offences must be exercised after
having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Keeping in mind the unprovoked attack by the petitioners and the
nature of near fatal injuries sustained by the respondents, I am not
inclined to permit the compounding of the offence.
11. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 23, 2012/akb
