Delhi High Court
Surender @ Tiger & Anr vs State & Anr. on 1 June, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No.2051/2012
Date of Decision: 01.06.2012
SURENDER @ TIGER & ANR ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This is petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 99/2012
registered U/s 323/336/452/34 IPC registered at P.S. Baba Hari Das
Nagar, Delhi which was registered at the instance of respondent No.
2/complainant Kanhiya Lal who was engaged in the office of a property
dealer situated at plot No.1, Nanak Pyau, Nazafgarh, Delhi.
2. It was alleged in the said FIR that on 7.5.2012 at about 10.00 p.m.
the petitioners along with one unknown person came into the office in a
drunken state where respondent No.2 was present alone and entered into
an altercation with him. It was further alleged that petitioner No.1 was
in possession of a pistol and fired the same, thereby damaging the
television set kept in the office and when respondent No.2 objected to
this behaviour, petitioner No.2 Ishwar hit him on the head with a beer
bottle. It was stated that respondent No.2 managed to flee from the
office and informed his employers about the incident who in turn
narrated the incident to the police pursuant to which the present FIR was
lodged.
3. The quashing of the FIR has been prayed for on the ground that
an MOU has been executed between the petitioners and the complainant
on 21.05.2012 whereby the complainant has agreed to withdraw his
complaint and has settled the matter with the petitioners. The offences
under Section 336 and 452 IPC are not covered under the Scheme of
Section 320 of the Code and are hence non-compoundable, but U/s 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 U/s 320
Cr.P.C. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386, it was
held by the Hon'ble Apex 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.
4. In such cases, the only thing that is to be considered by this court
is whether such quashing would be in the interest of justice or not. For
determining the answer of this question it is imperative that regard must
be had of the facts and circumstances of each case which varies from
one another.
5. In the present case, the offences with which the petitioners are
charged are serious in nature. There are allegations of assault and firing
done by the petitioners while respondent No.2 was present in the office
unarmed and did nothing to provoke the petitioners which could result
in such an attack. It is also not the case where the alleged attack was
made in self-defence or in heat of the moment. Moreover, the weapon
used for firing by the petitioner No.1 is yet to be recovered. It has also
been brought to my notice that petitioner No.1 is a habitual offender and
BC of the area and is feared by the people of the locality due to his
criminal antecedents. There are admittedly as many as 8 FIRs lodged
against petitioner No.1 including charges U/s 302 IPC. It is evident
from the criminal history of petitioner No.1 and his accomplice that they
are notorious elements and are unabatedly indulging in criminal
activities without any regard to the law of the land. If the present FIR is
quashed then these activities would go unchecked resulting in
emboldening the petitioners which are proving a menace to the residents
of the locality.
6. Moreover, crimes are offences against the society against a whole
as opposed to an individual and their repercussions are inflicted upon
every person who is a part of a civilized society. A settlement arrived
between two parties in a criminal offence cannot become the touchstone
for arriving at the decision of quashing the proceedings in such cases.
There can be many factors responsible for such compromises like
pressure from the accused persons or reluctance to be involved in
litigation or even fear of a counter attack by the persons charged with
the crime. Thus, it is imperative that discretion must be exercised by the
Courts in compounding of the offences.
7. In view of the unprovoked attack by the petitioners and their
criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to permit the quashing of the
FIR. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JUNE 01, 2012
pkv
