Delhi High Court
Gopal Singh vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 998/2024
GOPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C.P. Dubey, Advocate with
Petitioner-in-person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
with SI Yogesh, PS Anand Parbat.
Ms. Mona Singh, Advocate with
respondents No.2 & 3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No. 309/2015 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Anand Parbat
and proceedings emanating therefrom. Sections 323 & 506 IPC have been
subsequently invoked.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, on 22.04.2015, SI Jagdish
Singh received a PCR call vide DD Nos.67B regarding some quarrel. Upon
reaching at the spot i.e. Ramlila Ground Nehru Nagar behind Sabji Mandi,
no one was found. Thereafter, information was received about the treatment
of Deepak and Jagdish (respondents No.2 and 3) at Acharya Bhikshu
Hospital, Moti Nagar. Complainant alleged that while he was parking his
vehicle behind Nehru Nagar Subzi Mandi, Ramlila Park, he asked the
accused present at spot to stand away on which the accused started abusing
and slapped him. Later on accused was joined by another person. However,
the complainant managed to escape from the place of incident and informed
about the same to his father telephonically. When father of complainant
alongwith other family members reached at the spot, the said accused
alongwith two other companions attacked the complainant and his family
members with stones, bricks and sticks. FIR was accordingly registered
under Sections 308/323/506/34 IPC at PS Anand Parbat on 25.04.2015.
3. During the course of investigation, petitioner/accused Gopal Singh
joined the proceedings, but other two accomplices could not be identified.
Accordingly charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter has been
amicably settled between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 vide
Settlement Deed dated 05.12.2023 since they were residing in close vicinity.
It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a driver, with clean past
antecedents and respondents No.2 and 3 have been compensated towards
expenses incurred for their treatment.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in person and
have been identified by SI Yogesh, P.S.: Anand Parbat. I have interacted
with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondents No. 2
and 3 also state that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between
the parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
7. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases,
the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be
used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list
or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the
society.
Principles for quashing of FIR have been delineated in Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
(2017) 9 SCC 641. Predicated on settlement between the parties, FIRs under
similar Section have been quashed in 'Laxman Karotia & Ors. vs. The State
NCT of Delhi & Ors.', CRL.M.C. 813/2024 decided on 16.02.2024 by
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and 'Amit Kumar & Ors. vs. State & Ors.'.
CRL.M.C. 2106/2024, decided on 15.03.2024 by this Court.
8. Petitioner has clean past antecedents and has other involvement. The
incident appears to have occurred over a minor issue of parking. Parties
intend to put quietus to the proceedings and move forward in life.
Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the
case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of
the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 309/2015 under Sections
308/323/506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Anand Parbat and the proceedings
emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned MM, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 03, 2024/v
