Harsh Dabas & Anr. vs The State & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1579 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         Crl.M.C. No.3134/2011

                                             Date of Decision: 06.03.2012

Harsh Dabas & Anr.                                        ...... Petitioners

                          Through:      Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocate

                                  Versus

The State & Anr.                                      ...... Respondents

                          Through:      Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the
                                        State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.198/2011 registered at Police Station Bawana under Sections 307/34 IPC. The above said FIR was registered on 9.6.2011 on the complaint of respondent no.2 Bhupinder Singh.

2. In the abovesaid FIR, respondent no.2 alleged that on 9.6.2011 while he was coming towards his house at Narela, Delhi, at about 5.40 pm in his Wagon R car and reached at a bus stand towards Bawana, a white Maruti car came from behind and stopped towards the left side of his car and started abusing him for not giving side. After this, respondent no.2 tried to explain that due to heavy traffic he was unable to give side to

the Maruti Car. It was alleged that upon hearing this, the three boys travelling in the Maruti Car came out and started beating him with leg and fist blows and put him down on the road. It was stated that the driver of the car took out the kirpan of respondent no.2 and attacked him on his chest, neck and left shoulder and the other two boys continued beating him with leg and fist blows. On raising hue and cry, the three persons fled away in their car with the Kirpan of respondent no.2.

3. On making the PCR call by the father of respondent no.2, a PCR van reached the spot and respondent no.2 was taken to MV Hospital. His MLC No.2334/2011was collected and statement was recorded by the police. A case was registered and during investigation, two accused persons were identified as petitioner no.1 Harsh Dabas and petitioner no.2 Sumit Dabas who were arrested on 11.6.2011. The kirpan of respondent no.2 used in the offence was recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The third accused could not be traced. A charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.PC was prepared on 5.10.2011 and filed in the Court of learned MM Rohini Court, Delhi.

4. This petition is filed consequent to the Compromise Deed executed between respondent no.2 and the petitioners on 1.9.2011 whereby the disputes between the two parties are stated to be amicably resolved.

5. The compounding of certain offences punishable under Indian Penal Code is covered under Section 320 Cr.PC. Sub section 1 of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the Table provided

thereunder 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 leave of the Court. Further sub section (9) provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section".

6. An offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable under the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.PC. However, in the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court is within its powers to quash the FIR even in non-compoundable offences. Section 320 Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint even in non compoundable offences. Refer B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana [AIR 2003 SC 1386]. Thus, it is settled legal preposition that this Court can allow compounding of offences not covered under Section 320 Cr.PC.

7. The question that now comes up for consideration is whether such quashing of FIR would serve the ends of justice or not. Crime is not an offence only against an individual, but against the society as a whole. This is the reasoning behind crimes being prosecuted by State and the prosecutor files the case in the court as the State's representative as opposed the victim of the crime. The compounding of serious offences like murder and an attempt to murder cannot be routinely allowed as a consequence of settlement between the complainant and the victim, but only after weighing the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in Crl.M.C. No.247/2012 titled Najibur Rehman @ Mujibur Rehman &

Anr. Vs. State & Ors. has already cautioned against quashing of FIR in cases of compromises in a mechanical manner.

8. On a perusal of record, it is seen that the attack on respondent No.2 was without any provocation and on a petty issue of not giving side to the car of the petitioners by the respondent No.2. There was no apprehension of safety that could arise in the minds of the petitioners. The attack on the respondent No.2 was made by a sharp weapon and he was mercilessly beaten by three persons after pining him down to the ground. It is noticed that such road rage crimes are on a rise now a days which is a disturbing trend from the standpoint of a common man. In the MLC No.2334/2011, it was opined that three sharp injuries were suffered by respondent No.2 in the following manner :

Injury No.1 (7*1CM*UP to Muscle) over right side of neck, Injury No.2 CTW (3*1, 5CM* UP to Muscle) over right side of chest and Injury No.3 CIW (1.5*0.5CM) on left forearm.

It is seen that the injuries inflicted upon the respondent No.2 were on vital parts like the neck and chest which could have proved fatal for him.

9. Thus, it is seen that such a premeditated attack was made by three persons on one individual showing utter disregard to the law of land. Mere compromise arrived at between the parties cannot be made a touchstone for exercising discretion in the cases for quashing the FIR and proceedings overlooking such serious offences. It is generally seen that the victims tend to compromise the matter with the accused out of fear of

retaliation or pressure from the accused persons or fear of being involved in the litigation over a long period of time. In this scenario, the discretion conferred upon the courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised by the courts in allowing the compounding of offences after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case2 in totality.

10. In view of the unprovoked attack by the petitioners on the respondent No.2 with a sharp object on his vital organs, I am not inclined to permit the compounding of the offence committed by the petitioners. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) March 06, 2012 ss/rd/skw/awanish