Ramesh & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4004 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Crl.M.C. No.398/2012
                   Crl.M.C. No.407/2012

                                       Date of Decision: 09.07.2012
Crl.M.C. No.398/2012

BHAGWATI PARSHAD & ORS.        ......        Petitioners
            Through: Mr.Madan Lal, Advocate

                              Versus

STATE & ORS.                                     ...... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

Crl.M.C. No.407/2012

RAMESH & ORS.                          ......         Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate

                              Versus

STATE & ORS.                                     ...... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. These are two petitions arising out of the two cross FIRs. The

petition bearing Crl.M.C.No.407/12, is in respect of FIR

no.655/07, u/S 308/341/34 IPC registered by PS Ambedkar

Nagar.

2. The said FIR has been registered at the instance of one

Bhagwati Parshad, S/o Sh.Mange Lal, R/o B-2,287, Madangir,

New Delhi, aged around 26 years. He has stated that on

9.9.07, he was present at a shop when the incident took place

in which he was attacked by Ramkumar, Briju, Ramesh and

Sriram, with an attempt to cause homicide. He was also

alleged subjected to wrongful restraint. On the basis of this,

a case under Section 341 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of common

intention was registered against them. After investigation,

the charge sheet has been filed against all the four accused

persons.

3. In Crl.M.C.no.398/12, an FIR no.658/07 was registered on

12.9.2007, under Section 341/323/308/506/34 IPC against

Bhagwati Prasad, Mahabir and Prabhu Dayal at the instance of

these very four persons, who are the accused in the cross

FIR.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that both the

parties have settled the matter and therefore, both these FIRs

against each other may be quashed.

5. The learned APP has opposed the quashing of the aforesaid

FIRs on the ground that the trial against the petitioners is on

and they have not disclosed, as to why they have decided to

compromise, after expiry of five years. It has also been

stated by him that statements of some of the witnesses have

already been recorded and all the accused persons in both the

FIRs are not the parties before this Court and therefore, the

FIRs may not be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contested the

position of the learned APP saying that even if all the parties

are not present, still the FIRs be quashed.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the FIRs.

The learned counsel has not placed even a single order of the

trial court nor any information has been furnished as to what

is the stage of the case in the trial court. It has also not been

clearly stated as to whether there are any other accused

persons other than the petitioners who are before this Court

in these two cases. Therefore, in the absence of this vital

information and merely because the parties have decided to

compound the offence at their own will, this cannot be a

ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIRs and that too for a

serious offence where both the parties had recklessly indulged

in an attempt to cause homicide.

8. Accordingly, I feel that for want of particulars, it will not be

proper to quash the aforesaid FIRs at this stage, hence the

petitions are dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

th 9 July, 2012 RN