Pramod Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 2838 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 21st MAY, 2013
                                DECIDED ON : 08th JULY, 2013

+                         CRL.M.C. 654/2013

       PRAMOD KUMAR                                    ....Petitioner
               Through :         Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate/ petitioner
                                 in person.

                                 versus

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                        ....Respondent
                Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                          Mr.R.S.Mishra, Advocate for complainant
                          SI Ranvir Singh, PS Palam Village.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred

by the petitioner- Pramod Kumar for quashing of FIR No. 73/2010 under

Sections 308/325/342/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village

and charge dated 09.10.2012 under Sections 308/342/34 IPC.

2. I have heard the parties and examined the record. Petitioner

urged that he has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 73/2010 which was

lodged as a counterblast to FIR No. 72/2010 registered in the said police

station under Sections 452/323/327/34 IPC against the complainant and

his associates on his complaint. He further argued that he had represented

the complainant's tenants in various legal proceedings and was

pressurized to withdraw from those cases. When he did not oblige, he was

implicated in this case. He pointed out that the complainant has already

settled/compromised with the co-accused persons and the proceedings

have been quashed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 3982/2010 and Crl.M.A.

18910/2010 by an order dated 23.12.2010. Learned counsel for the

complainant and learned APP argued that the charge-sheet has already

been filed against the petitioner and charge has been framed. The

petitioner did not opt for mediation and criminal proceedings were not

quashed qua him. The complainant sustained 'grievous' injuries on head

in the incident.

3. I have considered the submissions of the parties. Status report

reveals that FIR No. 73/2010 under Sections 308/325/342/34 IPC was

registered on 28.03.2010 on the statement of the complainant Radhika

Parsad Tiwari. He specifically named Neeraj, Chhutkan, Renu, and

Ranjyoti and the present petitioner to have entered into his room forcibly

at 12 noon. He alleged that they all in furtherance of common intention

inflicted injuries on his head. It was alleged that the present petitioner-

Pramod Kumar had a knife. PCR van reached the spot and took Radhika

Parsad Tiwari to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The injuries on the head

were opined 'grievous'. During the course of investigation, the co-accused

persons settled the dispute with the complainant before Delhi High Court

Mediation Centre and this Court quashed the criminal proceedings qua

them. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in

the Court and charge under Sections 308/342/34 IPC was framed vide

detailed order dated 09.10.2012. It is disclosed that the complainant and

an independent eye witness have already been examined in the said

proceedings. Another case vide FIR No. 194/2010 was also registered

under Sections 452/323/506/509/34 IPC on the complaint of

complainant's mother-in-law against the petitioner.

4. At this stage, the correctness or otherwise of the allegations

in the FIR is not to be seen by the High Court and that will be seen at the

trial. It has to be seen whether on a perusal of the FIR a prima facie

offence is made out or not. The FIR in question prima facie discloses the

commission of a cognizable offence under Sections 308/342/34 IPC

against the petitioner. Mere settlement of the offence with co-accused

persons leading to quashing of the FIR qua them does not dilute the

offence (if any) committed by the petitioner. The matter requires

adjudication after getting evidence. Allegations in the FIR cannot be

brushed aside at this stage. The petitioner will be at liberty to address all

these contentions on merits at relevant time during trial. Since there are

specific allegations against the petitioner in the statement of the

complainant lodged with the police and these are supported by medical

evidence whereby he sustained head injuries 'grievous' in nature, the

proceedings pending before the Trial Court cannot be quashed. The

petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 08, 2013 tr