Delhi High Court
Roopam Gulati & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 9 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 09, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 597/2014
SANJAY WADHWA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Yogendra Kumar
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 598/2014
ROOPAM GULATI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Yogendra Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.346/2007 under Sections 448/380/323/324/506/454/427/34 of IPC (in
CRL.M.C. 597 & 598 of 2014 Page 1
CRL.M.C.597/2014) and FIR No.345/2007 under Sections 323/326/
506/34of IPC (in CRL.M.C.598/2014) both registered at P.S. Subzi
Mandi, Delhi on the ground of Mediated Settlement of 9th April, 2013
arrived at Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Since the above quashing is sought on the common grounds,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, they are
being disposed of.
Pertinently, I find that there is no reference of Section 326 of IPC
in the afore-noted Mediated Settlement. However, accused persons of FIR
No.345/2007 have been charge-sheeted for the offence under Section326
of IPC as well.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State points
out that offence under Section 326 of IPC entails punishment of
imprisonment for life and draws the attention of this Court to the
following observations made by the 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.‟
Further, the Apex Court in N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj, (2014)
CRL.M.C. 597 & 598 of 2014 Page 2
10 SCC 616, has observed as under:-
"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases
that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised
sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of
any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a
prima facie decision unless there are compelling
circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the
complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting
anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High
Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the
exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. An
investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the
allegations have some substance.
14. An overall perusal of the materials placed before us
makes out a prima facie case against the accused which
requires to be decided by conducting a proper trial. At this
stage the High Court cannot analyse and meticulously
consider the evidence and anticipate whether it will end up in
conviction or acquittal. This is not the stage to decide whether
there is any truth in the allegations made but to form an
opinion whether on the basis of the allegation a cognizable
offence or offences alleged has been prima facie made out.
The guilt or otherwise of the accused can be proved only after
conducting a full-fledged trial. In the circumstances, in our
CRL.M.C. 597 & 598 of 2014 Page 3
opinion, it is not proper for the High Court to interfere with
the proceedings and quash the final report submitted by the
police"
Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) and
N. Soundaram (supra), I do not find it to be a fit case for quashing the
FIRs in question. Accordingly, the above-captioned two petitions are
dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits lest it may
prejudice either side at trial.
Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 597 & 598 of 2014 Page 4
