Delhi High Court
Sukbir Singh vs State & Ors. on 5 July, 2023
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6189/2022
SUKBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. B. Sharma, Mr. Yashwant G.
And Mr. Tushant, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
with SI Aarti Yadav, PS Sagarpur.
R-2 in person.
% Date of Decision: 5th July, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC seeking
quashing of FIR No. 705/2015 registered at PS Sagarpur under
Sections 354D/323 IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. The present
FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No.5/complainant
alleging that petitioner had been stalking her and when the
complainant asked him not to do so, the petitioner gave beatings to
her uncle Raj Kumar.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
13:29:27
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same date,
another cross FIR No. 706/2015 under Sections 341/323/34 IPC
registered at PS Sagarpur was lodged by the petitioner party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the parties have
reached an amicable settlement and in FIR No. 705/2015 registered at
PS Sagarpur under Sections 354D/323 IPC and Section POCSO Act,
the offenses are compoundable in nature have already compounded
before the learned Trial Court in respect of FIR No. 706/2015 under
Sections 341/323/34 IPC registered at PS Sagarpur. The settlement
has been placed on record.
4. The parties have entered into the settlement vide MOU dated
09.11.2022/10.11.2022 or December, 2021voluntarily fear, force and
coercion on the following terms and conditions:-
A. That both the parties being related to each other have agreed
to maintain peaceful, cordial and harmonious relation with
each other in future and thus both the parties have mutually
agreed to cooperate each other for quashing of FIR or
statement in concerned court in the above noted criminal
cases pending against each other.
B. That both parties have agreed that they shall cooperate each
other in the case above mentioned and give statement to that
effect before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi/concerned
Court at New Delhi.
C. That both the parties mutually agreed that both in future they
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
13:29:27
will not file any criminal case or complaint against each
other or any other family members qua the alleged dispute
and if any case or complaint is found to pending in any
Court of law or before any authority, the same shall be
deemed to be null and void.
D. That both the parties undertake to abide by the terms
elaborated in this settlement/MOU. That now after this
agreement/settlement no more dispute, differences,
litigation, claim or counter claims between the parties
remains and the parties shall take necessary steps and
actions to implement this MOU in its letter and spirit and co-
operate with each other.
E. That both parties have executed this agreement/settlement
voluntarily on their own free will and accord without any
pressure, inducement, force, compulsion or threat from any
quarter whatsoever.
5. Respondent No.2 is present in person and states that she has entered
into the settlement voluntarily out of her own free will without any
fear force or coercion and she has no objection if the present
proceedings are quashed.
6. Parties have been duly identified by the IO
7. I have interacted with respondent No.5, she states she wants to settle
the matter amicably voluntarily without fear, force or coercion. The
cases pertaining to offences under the POCSO act have been quashed
by the coordinate benches of this court. Reliance has been placed on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
13:29:27
the order dated 24.04.2019 in Yogesh Kumar Gupta vs State, W.P.
(Crl.) 3281/2018; order dated 02.12.2021 in Rohit Kumar vs. The
State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., CRL. M.C. 3096/2021; order dated
21.02.2022 in Kundan & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., CRL.M.C. 27/2022.
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. pre-supposes three circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, i.e., (i) to give effect to an
order (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of court and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. The court while exercising the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of
appeal or revision. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are of
wide plenitude but have to be exercised sparingly with caution and
only in the event when aforesaid three conditions are satisfied. The
object behind the exercise of such power should be to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which the courts exist.
9. It has time and again been held by the Apex Court and this court that
wherein the offence is predominantly private in nature and does not
have a serious impact on the society as a whole then in such cases, the
court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties
would lead to better relations between them and would resolve the
private dispute and thus the court may exercise power under Section
482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as
the case may be.
10.Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and to prevent the abuse of the power of the Court and to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
13:29:27
secure the ends of justice this court deems it fit to quash the FIR No.
705/2015 registered at PS Sagarpur under Sections 354D/323 IPC and
Section 12 of POCSO Act. and the criminal proceedings emanating
therefrom.
11.Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 5, 2023
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
13:29:27
