Delhi High Court
Ranvijay Singh vs The State & Ors. on 29 May, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~24 to 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 4758/2014
SHIVAM GUPTA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra and
Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates
Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate for
petitioner No. 5
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.S.Patwalia, ASG with Mr. M.
Shoeb Alam, Mr. Shreya Sinha and Mr.
Akash Nagar, Advocates for respondent-
State
Mr. V.K. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aditya Soni, Mr. Karan Mehta and Mr.
Vikram Pradeep, Advocates for
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
Ms. Usha Rangnani, ACP with Inspector
Virender Singh, SHO PS-Vasant Kunj
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 4762/2014
SUKHVINDER SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.K. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aditya Soni, Mr. Karan Mehta and Mr.
Vikram Pradeep, Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.S.Patwalia, ASG with Mr. M.
Shoeb Alam, Mr. Shreya Sinha and Mr.
Akash Nagar, Advocates for respondent-
State
Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No. 6
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 1
Mr. Vineet Malhotra and Mr. Shubhendu
Kaushik, Advocates
Ms. Usha Rangnani, ACP with Inspector
Virender Singh, SHO PS - Vasant Kunj
+ (iii) CRL.M.C. 5711/2014
SHIV KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra and
Mr. Shubhendu Kaushik, Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.S.Patwalia, ASG with Mr. M.
Shoeb Alam, Mr. Shreya Sinha and Mr.
Akash Nagar, Advocates for respondent-
State
Mr. V.K. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aditya Soni, Mr. Karan Mehta and Mr.
Vikram Pradeep, Advocates for
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
Ms. Usha Rangnani, ACP with Inspector
Virender Singh, SHO PS - Vasant Kunj
+ (iv) CRL.M.C. 5713/2014
RANVIJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.S.Patwalia, ASG with Mr.
M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Shreya Sinha
and Mr. Akash Nagar, Advocates
for respondent-State
Mr. V.K. Bali, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Aditya Soni, Mr. Karan
Mehta and Mr. Vikram Pradeep,
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 2
Advocates for respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4
Ms. Usha Rangnani, ACP with
Inspector Virender Singh, SHO PS
- Vasant Kunj
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
In the above-captioned four petitions quashing of FIR
No.485/2014 registered under Sections 324/307/34 IPC and Section 27 of
the Arms Act, 1959 and cross FIR No.486/2014 under Section
323/327/452/506/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 both
registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, Delhi is sought on the basis of
misunderstanding between the parties being cleared in terms of
Memorandum of Understandings of 31st July, 2014 and 3rd September,
2014.
These petitions are strongly resisted by learned Additional
Solicitor General, who has played CCTV footage of the incident in
question in the Court in the presence of learned counsel for petitioners,
who have also seen it.
The venue of this incident is KEYA Bar where petitioner-Parth
Wadia with his friends and personal security guards (PSOs) had gone on
27th June, 2014 around 10.15 p.m. and had tried to enter the bar but he
was stopped by a security guard-Neeraj by saying that the entry for the
said day was only for the couples. As per the case projected in cross FIR
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 3
in question, a fight took place between PSOs of Parth Wadia, who was
there with his four friends and the security guards of the Bar and in the
said incident, both the sides had suffered injuries, which were found to be
of simple nature. As per the version given in these FIRs, the security
guard of the KEYA Bar-Neeraj is said to have been fled away from the
spot after waiving a knife and one of the PSOs of Parth Wadia was found
to be armed with a pistol. Initially, the FIRs were registered for the
offence under Section 323/324/452/506/34 IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act and later on, offence under Section 307 IPC was also added.
The first five petitioners of the above captioned first petition are said to
be from respectable families and petitioner-Sukhvinder Singh
[Crl.M.C.No.4762/2014] is stated to be Manager of the KEYA Bar and
rest of the petitioners [except petitioner-Ranvijay Singh of
Crl.M.C.No.5713/2014] are the PSOs and security guards of the said Bar
and have placed on record their respective affidavits seeking quashing of
the cross FIRs.
With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the above-
captioned petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners
had submitted that all the petitioners have clean antecedents and none of
them had used any weapon or firearm and there was no destruction of
any public property. It was submitted that there was no unlawful
assembly nor there was any common object of rioting and so no offence
under Section 147/148/149 of IPC is made out. It was also submitted that
the offence committed by the parties in these petitions at best comes
within the ambit of Sections 323/324, which are compoundable and no
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 4
offence under Section 307 IPC is made out and the said offence has been
later on added. It was pointed out that simple injuries sustained were
neither on vital parts nor were found to be dangerous to life. It was also
submitted that no house trespass was committed by any of the petitioners
nor was any threat extended and so offences under Section 452/506 IPC
are also not made out. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466,
Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2014) SCC Online SC 568, Gold
Quest International Private Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(2014) SCC Online SC 703, Crl.M.C.No.6621/2006 Basara & Ors. v.
State & Anr. decided on 3rd September, 2007 to submit that it is a fit case
to quash the proceedings arising out of these cross FIRs.
Learned Additional Solicitor General for respondent-State had
submitted that the compromise arrived at between the parties is of no
avail as offence committed by the parties is serious one and the CCTV
footage reveals that there was unlawful rioting by the parties, which
created a sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of public persons, who
visit such places. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Apex Court
decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit
that FIRs in serious cases like instant one ought not to be quashed.
Lastly, it was submitted that quashing of FIRs pertaining to such incident
would embolden the criminal elements and create atmosphere of fear and
anxiety and such ugly scene created by the parties, who were armed
ought to be curbed with a heavy hand.
The accused persons as well as complainant parties of these two
FIRs have placed on record their respective affidavits to seek quashing of
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 5
these cross FIRs.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the FIRs in
question, the response of respondents-accused, affidavits of the parties
filed in support of this petition to seek quashing of the cross FIRs, I find
that the parameters governing quashing of FIR under Section 307 IPC as
reiterated by Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6
SCC 466 need to be adverted to with particular reference to paragraphs
No.29.6 to 29.7, which are as under:-
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to
be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the High Court would
not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which
if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction
or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding
the offence based on complete settlement between the parties.
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 6
At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at
this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet
has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at
infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain
from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in
such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the
case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate
stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the
trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty
of such a crime."
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 7
Section 159 of IPC reads as under:-
Affray.--When two or more persons, by fighting in
a public place, disturb the public peace, they are
said to "commit an affray".
Upon considering the facts of the instant case and after viewing the
CCTV footage, this Court is of the considered opinion that taking the
prosecution case at its best, the offence committed by the parties largely
comes within the definition of affray or offences under Section 323/324
IPC are attracted.
In any case, the prosecution case does not fall within the ambit of
Section 307 IPC or Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Such a view is
being taken particularly after viewing the CCTV footage. During the
pendency of these petitions, it was deemed appropriate to refer the parties
to Delhi State Legal Services Authority for counseling and in view of
report of 27th March, 2015 received from the said Authority, I find that
parties in both these petitions, who have clean antecedents, have been
adequately counseled. However, this Court is conscious of the ground
realities and realizes the need to ensure that such like incidents ought not
to occur at public places. Therefore, while quashing the cross FIRs, this
Court finds it to be most appropriate to direct that if any of the accused
persons of these two FIRs is found to be indulging into such or similar
offences in future then the proceedings arising out of FIRs, in question,
would be revived against such a petitioner-accused.
With aforesaid rider, these four petitions are allowed with cost of
`25,000/- each to be deposited by petitioners-Shivam Gupta, Parth
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 8
Wadia, Sameer Khurana, Kabir Sheikh, Shubhan Jain, Ranvijay Singh &
Sukhvinder Singh and cost of `10,000/- each to be deposited by
petitioners-Nepal Singh, Shyam Sunder, Hardeep, Neeraj, Deepak Uppal,
Shiv Kumar, Sachin Rathi, Mohan Lal, Sudhir Kumar, Jitender, Gurjit
Singh, Mandeep Singh, Harish Kumar & Rajiv to be deposited with
Prime Minister Relief Fund within a period of two weeks and upon
placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No.485/2014 registered under
Sections 324/307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and cross
FIR No.486/2014 under Section 323/327/452/506/34IPC and Section 27
of the Arms Act, 1959 both registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.
These petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.Nos.4758, 4762, 5711 & 5713 of 2014 Page 9
