Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar Sharawat And Other vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 9 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1089/2024
RAJESH KUMAR SHARAWAT AND OTHER ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Hitesh Singh, Mr.Sunil Sharma,
Ms.Divya Jyoti, Ms.Pooja Bansal,
Ms.Apali Kaushal, Ms.Nisha Chauhan
and Ms.Tanvi Munjal, Advocates with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
(Crl.), GNCTD with Mr.Abhinav
Kumar Arya, Mr.Priyam Aggarwal
and Mr.Shivesh Kaushik, Advocates
alongwith SI Krishan and HC Vikas,
PS Bawana.
Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been
preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0483/2023
under Sections 354/354B/509/506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Bawana and the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person appear on advance
notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered
on the complaint of respondent No.2 who stated that she alongwith her
husband had purchased a land in Village Dariyapur and had visited to inspect
the same about 11.30 A.M. on 14.06.2023. She further alleged that petitioner
No.1 (Rajesh Kumar Sharawat) along with his father and brother (petitioners
Nos. 2 and 3) asked them to leave the said place. However, when
complainant informed them that they had purchased the said property,
petitioner No.3 abused them while petitioner No.1 pulled off her Dupatta and
hit her on the chest. Since people started gathering, petitioners left the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that disputes between the
parties with reference to the plot in question have been amicably settled in
terms of Settlement Deed dated 29.02.2024. It is further submitted that both
petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are neighbours, known to each other
and settlement shall promote harmony between parties.
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. Petitioners in the present case seek 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.
7. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be
appropriately quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from
serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil
dispute or offences involving minor incidents over personal disputes, which
do not affect public at large, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. It also needs to be
assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of
conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings
would cause grave oppression and prejudice to the accused.
8. Petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Krishan, P.S.: Bawana. I have interacted with the
parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between
them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2 also states
that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and
she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Parties being known to each other intend to put quietus to the
proceedings and move forward in life. The chances of conviction are bleak in
view of settlement between the parties. No past involvements of petitioners
have been brought to notice of this Court. The settlement shall further
promote harmony between the parties.
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. 0483/2023 under
Sections 354/354B/509/ 506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Bawana and the
proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 9, 2024/v
