Delhi High Court
Sanjay Dass & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 10 April, 2015
$~3 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 10, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 5560/2014
SANJAY DASS & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali and Mr. Mohd.
Shariq, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Mool Chand
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 5565/2014
VARUN DASS & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shahid Ali and Mr. Mohd.
Shariq, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Mool Chand
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
No.787/2013 under Sections 307/34 of IPC and FIR No.1146/2014 under
CRL.M.C. 5560 & 5565/2014 Page 1
Sections 308/34 of IPC both registered at P.S. Madhu Vihar, Delhi is
sought on the basis of affidavits of complainant party and on an oral
settlement.
Since the quashing is sought on identical grounds, therefore, with
the consent of both the sides, these petitions were heard together and by
this common judgment, they are being disposed of.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had relied upon
decision in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v.
Mohan Singh and Others AIR 1975 SC 1002, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.)192, Basara & Ors.
V. State & Anr. 2007 (98) DRJ 381, Sapan Patra v. The State (NCT of
Delhi) & Ors. 2006 [3] JCC 2150, Vicky Malhotra & Ors. State & Anr.
134 (2006) DLT 432, Inderjeet Goel v. State & Anr. 2006 [3] JCC 1333,
Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another v. State of Orissa AIR 1999 SC
2181, Satwinder Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Others in
Crl.M.C.22608/2011 decided on 29th May, 2012, Dharam Pal Singh v.
State of Punjab and Others in Crl.M.C. No.5348/2014 decided on 15th
May, 2014 and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and
Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 to submit that upon compromise, the
proceedings arising out the FIRs in question deserve to be quashed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
strongly opposes the quashing of the FIRs in question by submitting that
the offence committed was a pre-meditated one and 7 or 8 knife blows
were inflicted. It is submitted that in serious cases, like the instant one,
FIRs ought not to be quashed. In this regard, attention of this Court is
CRL.M.C. 5560 & 5565/2014 Page 2
drawn to following observations made by Apex Court in „Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr.‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, which reads as under:-
"58. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under
IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes,
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity,
the settlement between the offender and the victim can have
no legal sanction at all."
It is pointed out that the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court
stands reiterated by the Apex Court in its later decision in Narinder Singh
v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the
Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
"29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender."
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIRs in question, the status
report and the decisions cited, I find that the nature of the offence
committed is such which dissuades this Court to quash the FIRs in
question.
Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed while clarifying
CRL.M.C. 5560 & 5565/2014 Page 3
that the dismissal of these petitions would not be taken as a reflection on
the merits of this case at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 5560 & 5565/2014 Page 4
