Naveen Pawar &Ors. vs State & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3281 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         Crl.M.C. No.1523/2012

                                           Date of Decision: 16.05.2012

NAVEEN PAWAR &ORS.                                ...... PETITIONERS

                          Through:     Mr. Vijay Sansanwal, Advocate.

                                 Versus

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. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 249/03 registered under Section 341/323/435/427 & 34 IPC registered at P.S. Hauz Khas on the complaint of respondent no.2.

2. The contents of the FIR in brief were that on 03.05.2003 at about 07.30 p.m. in Shah Pur Jat area the respondent no.2/complainant had an altercation with petitioner no.1 and 3 and few other boys of the locality over the demand of the taxi at the office of the taxi stand run by the respondent no.2. It was stated by respondent no.2 that he was dragged out of his office and beaten up by the petitioners and in order to save himself, he had to flee from the spot. It was further stated that on the

same night petitioner no.2 came to the taxi stand of the complainant along with some other boys and deflated the tyre of the vehicle parked there. The complainant came at the taxi stand later in the night to remove the deflated vehicle in order to save it from further damage and parked it on the main road for securing it. Later on the complainant along with his brother took a Toyota Qualis to reach home but it was also deflated and could not be moved further than the main road of Panchsheel Park. It was further stated that on seeing the vehicle parked outside the taxi stand, the petitioner no. 2 came on a motorcycle along with an unknown associate and poured kerosene over the Toyota Qualis and set it ablaze and ran away. The fire was put out with the help of fire brigade, but not before it was fully burnt. The charge sheet in the case has been filed by the police in the ld. Trial Court.

3. The prayer for quashing of the FIR has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground of settlement between the parties. On the other hand, the ld. APP has vehemently opposed the quashing, keeping in view of the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and the nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners.

4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the file.

5. The offence under Section 435 IPC is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of seven years and is non-compoundable. But this Court can permit the compounding of non-compoundable offence by exercising its inherent powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the facts and circumstances of the case merit such compounding.

6. In the instant case, the petitioners along with other people assaulted alone and unarmed respondent no.2 at his office following an altercation. Had the petitioners been under any fear of law, they would have been repentant and stopped at that. But allegedly, after a few hours petitioner no.2 came back and deflated the vehicles at the taxi stand in order to further intimidate and threaten respondent no.2. The lack of any regard to the law and order was further displayed by petitioner no.2 by setting the Toyota car on fire parked right on the main road. This kind of behavior proves that the petitioners were not first time offenders, but were in the habit of mocking the norms of a civilized society. These acts cannot be presumed to be done in a fit of emotion or in self defense, but to create a terror in the people of the locality and to prevent the respondent no.2 from making any complaint to the police.

7. It has been brought to my notice that the petitioner, Naveen Pawar is a repeat offender and is involved in as many as 12 cases registered against him which involved allegations of chain snatching, damaging public and private property, assaulting police officials on duty etc. Out of these, five are still pending and he is also BC of the area. It is nobody's guess that if such anti social people are let off without facing trial for the alleged offences committed by them, then it would further embolden them to wreak havoc in the society, which cannot be permitted.

8. This Court has repeatedly cautioned against quashing of FIR merely on the basis of a compromise between the victim and the accused persons as there can be multiple reasons which could force the

victims to settle the matter with the accused persons. It could be due to fear of a counter attack or harassment of a lengthy trial and so on. But while deciding such cases, the entire facts and circumstances of the case must be looked upon to arrive at a conclusion that whether permitting such quashing would result in meeting the ends of justice or in giving a free hand to perpetuators of crime in the society.

9. In view of the brazen offences allegedly committed by the petitioners and their criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to permit the quashing of the present FIR.

10. The petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

MAY 16, 2012 ss