Delhi High Court
Kajal Sarkar vs State on 24 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 15.09.2017
Judgment Pronounced on: 24.10.2017
+ W.P (CRL.) 1999/2017
KAJAL SARKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Tushar Gupta &
Mr.Sanjiv Joshi, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for
the State with Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate
with SI Varun, PS Hauz Khas, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC)
for quashing of the FIR bearing No.690/2016, registered against
him on 06.11.2016 with Police Station Hauz Khas, South Delhi,
Delhi, under Section 307 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59
of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 while studying in a
college at Guwahati fell in love with each other in the year
2000/2001. They had performed a court marriage sometime in
the year 2008-09 which was only known to the family members
of respondent no.3. After marriage, respondent no.2 continued
to live with her parents as she did not disclose the factum of her
marriage to her parents.
3. Over time the relations between respondent no.2 and respondent
no.3 began to deteriorate and grew distant of each other.
4. During the year 2016, the respondent no.2 came in contact with
the petitioner who is a resident of Delhi and the two fell in love
with each other. On 02.11.2016, the respondent no.2 came to
Delhi for training for a period of three months. During this time
respondent no.2 also used to frequently meet the petitioner. The
Respondent no.3 also came to Delhi on 04/05.11.2016 for
business purposes as well as to meet respondent no.2. The
Respondent no.3 visited the hostel where the respondent no.2
was staying and became aware of the relation between the
respondent no.2 and the petitioner.
5. The Respondent no.3 confronted both the respondent no.2 and
the petitioner about their relationship. The respondent no.3 also
told respondent no.2 that she cannot marry the petitioner as she
was already married to him (i.e. respondent No.3). The
respondent no.3 also told the respondent no.2 that he would take
her back to Guwahati after she completes her training. After
hearing this, the petitioner got aggressive and took out his
father's licensed pistol and tried shooting himself. The
Respondent no.2 made endeavour to snatch the pistol from the
petitioner but the pistol got fired accidently and thus caused hurt
to the respondent no.2 & 3. The petitioner then shot himself in a
bid to commit suicide.
6. All three were admitted to the AIIMS, New Delhi for treatment
and the statements of both respondent no.2 & 3 were recorded.
The pistol used in the incident was seized from the place of
incident along with 5 live cartridges, three empty shells and one
fired bullet and sent for examination by the FSL, Rohini.
7. The parties have subsequently entered into a compromise and
decided to amicably settle all their disputes with the help and
intervention of family members.
8. The Ld. ASC informed that the charge-sheet has not been filed
so far in the present case.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 laid down the principles to be kept
in mind while quashing an FIR under Section 307 of the IPC as
under:
"29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is
to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
cases would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.
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. 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."
10. It is clear that the altercation took place due to a
misunderstanding between the parties and the pistol got fired
unintentionally while the respondent no.2 was trying to snatch it
from the petitioner. From these facts and especially now that
the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties, it is
clear that the chances of conviction are very low. All parties are
still young and have their whole life ahead of them. It is clear
that a cloud of passion and rage did not allow them to
comprehend the consequences of their actions and subsequently
with the intervention of the elders in their families all disputes
have been settled. Both the respondents had filed their
respective supporting affidavits along with the petition.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties and having regard to
the fact that the petitioner is still relatively young and his future
career shall be jeopardized if the criminal proceedings are
continued against him, no fruitful purpose would be served in
further pursuing the said FIR. Hence, in the facts and
circumstances of the case and to secure ends of justice, FIR
bearing No.690/2016, registered on 06.11.2016 with Police
Station Hauz Khas, South District, Delhi, under Section 307 of
the IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed
subject to the following directions:
i. Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost with
the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a period of two
weeks from today. Copy of receipt shall be filed within
one week thereafter with the Registry and a copy thereof
be supplied to the IO.
ii. Petitioner shall perform Kar Sewa at Gurudwara, Sector-
11, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 once a week on every
Saturday for three hours between 06.00 a.m. to 09.00 a.m.
for a period of eight weeks. Head of the Management of
the said Gurudwara is requested to utilize the services of
the petitioner in any manner he considers appropriate and
furnish a certificate qua his conduct at the expiry of the
said period of eight weeks. The Probation Officer of the
area shall ensure that the petitioner discharges the Kar
Sewa effectively, regularly and punctually. In case of
default let the Probation Officer through the concerned
SHO who shall report to Prosecution Branch to bring it to
the notice of the Court to recall the order of quashing of
FIR.
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
13. A copy of this order be also sent to the Head of the
Management of Gurudwara, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi-
110075 for necessary information and compliance.
14. Order dasti.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 24, 2017
//
