Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar @ Raju & Ors vs The State ( Gnct Of Delhi) & Ors on 7 April, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: April 7th, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 182/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.714/2016
RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Satbir Singh, Police Station
Chhawla, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with
Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.Raj
Kumar @ Raju, Sh. Ashok, Sh. Deepak Kumar, Sh. Sumit Kumar, and
Sh. Gugan Singh for quashing of FIR No.85/2015, under Sections
323/325/506/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla, Delhi on
the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the
petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 6, namely, Sh. Tule Ram, Smt.
Suman, Sh. Om Parkash, Smt. Nirmala, and Sh. Deepak Kumar,
respectively.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant, namely, Mr. Tule Ram on the
allegation that Sumit and Amit sons of Shri Krishan are his neighbours
who would often stand in front of his house after consuming liquor
and use vulgar language and once upon objection by respondent No. 3
- Suman, they threatened to kill the complainant and his family. It is
alleged that on the night of 01.12.2014 when Amit, Sumit and Deepak
were abusing, complainant's elder brother and his wife made them
understand that they should not pick quarrel but the trio continued
calling bad names. Thereafter, the complainant called on PCR 100. It
is alleged that, in the meantime, Raju Ashok and Gugan also came
with armed and sticks, axe and hockey. Police also reached at the spot.
When the complainant alongwith his wife, elder brother, bhabhi and
nephew Deepak went towards the police wan, it is alleged that Ashok
attacked with axe on the head of the complainant's bhabhi - Nirmala,
due to which she became unconscious. Sons of Raju alongwith their 4-
5 friends also reached at the spot with hockey sticks and brutally
attacked on the complainant party.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the present FIR was
registered. Petitioner No.1 was arrested on 16.04.2015 and later on
released on bail. Charge sheet was filed on 10.06.2015. However, with
the intervention of family friends, relatives and well wishers of the
society, respondent nos.2 to 6 and the petitioners mutually entered into
the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.06.2015 to resolve all
their past disputes, differences etc. peacefully against each other.
4. Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, counsel for the petitioner contended that
since both the parties belong to the same family and residing in the
same locality/village and due to some misunderstanding, the
unfortunate quarrel took placed between the parties leading to
registration of the present FIR and since all the disputes between the
parties have now been amicably and peacefully settled, and the
respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have also given their no objection to quashing
of the FIR in question, therefore, the FIR in question and the
proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.
5. Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State contended that the petitioners are charged with an offence
punishable under Section 307, and the respondent No. 5 was attacked
by petitioner No.2 - Ashok with the axe on her head due to which
respondent No. 5 suffered with grievous injuries on her head, therefore
the present petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and also gone through the material placed on record.
7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 10 SCC 303, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public
servants while working in their official capacity, cannot be quashed
even though victim or victims family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on the society. On similar point, reliance can be placed on
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 in which it was
further observed that offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against the
individual alone.
8. Further in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC
149 it was observed as under:
"15. We are not prepared to say that the crime
alleged to have been committed by the accused
persons was a crime against an individual, on
the other hand it was a crime against the
society at large. Criminal law is designed as a
mechanism for achieving social control and its
purpose is the regulation of conduct and
activities within the society. Why Section 307
IPC is held to be non-compoundable, is
because the Code has identified which conduct
should be brought within the ambit of non-
compoundable offences. Such provisions are
not meant just to protect the individual but the
society as a whole. The High Court was not
right in thinking that it was only an injury to the
person and since the accused persons (sic
victims) had received the monetary
compensation and settled the matter, the crime
as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice
system has a larger objective to achieve, that is,
safety and protection of the people at large and
it would be a lesson not only to the offender,
but to the individuals at large so that such
crimes would not be committed by anyone and
money would not be a substitute for the crime
committed against the society. Taking a lenient
view on a serious offence like the present, will
leave a wrong impression about the criminal
justice system and will encourage further
criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful
coexistence and welfare of the society at
large."
9. This Court further observes that the FIR in the present case has
been registered under Sections 323/325/506/34 of IPC which clearly
are offences against the society at large and not private in nature. As
observed in the aforesaid cases i.e. Narinder Singh (supra), Shambhu
Kewat (supra) and Gian Singh (supra), offences which are heinous
and against the society shall not be compounded having regard to
nature of injuries and the magnitude of impact even though the victims
and the offenders have compromised their matter and seek the
quashing of the FIR in the case.
10. Applying the ratio/principle laid down in the aforesaid cases to
the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the injuries inflicted
to the respondent No. 5 were very serious in nature. The accused
persons were armed with sticks, axe and hockey and gave a blow with
an axe on the head of the respondent No. 5.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and on the basis of the facts
and circumstances of this present case, this Court does not find it a fit
case to quash the FIR No. 85/2015, under Sections 323/325/506/34 of
IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla, Delhi. Accordingly, the
present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2016
pkb
