Delhi High Court
Zeeshan Ahmed & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 18 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.07.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 5148/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19623/2024
ZEESHAN AHMED & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Lakshay Luthra, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Arvind Verma, P.S. Gokul Puri.
Respondent No.2 to 4 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under 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. 0265/2024, under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, registered at P.S.:
Gokul Puri and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State along with respondent No. 2 to
4 appear on advance notice and accept notice
3. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on
18.06.2024 on complaint of Mohd. Azeem (respondent No.2) as there was an
altercation between the petitioners and respondent No.2 to 4 on supply of
substandard pizza by respondent No.2 who was running a restaurant.
Respondent No.2 to 4 are further alleged to have been assaulted by
petitioners. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 308/323/34 IPC
at P.S. Gokul Puri.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are
students aged between 20 to 23 years with clean past antecedents. The
incident is stated to have arisen over a minor issue of supplying of a
substandard pizza by respondent No.2. The nature of the injuries suffered by
respondent No.2 to 4 is stated to be simple in nature and were discharged
from the hospital on the same day. Respondent No.2 to 4 are also stated to
have been duly compensated and disputes amicably settled in terms of
Settlement Deed dated 26.06.2024.
5. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2 to 4
today through Cheque No.126075 dated 18.07.2024 drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Mustafabad, Delhi Branch in favour of respondent No.2.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
7. Petitioners in the present cases seek to invoke the powers under
Section 482 of the 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
generalized 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.
8. 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, where the complainant/victim
also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing, so far
as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The
High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists
material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is
sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the
offence charged with. It may also 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 the accused.
9. 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
Sections 308/323/341/34 IPC 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.
10. Petitioners and Respondent No.2 to 4 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Arvind Verma, P.S. Gokul Puri. 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 to
4 also submit that since all the disputes between the parties have been
amicably settled, they have no objection for quashing of FIR.
11. Parties intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out of a minor
issue of supply of substandard pizza and intend to move forward in life. The
settlement shall promote harmony between the parties. The chances of
conviction are bleak in view of settlement between the parties. Further, no
past involvement of the petitioners has been brought to the notice of this
Court who are stated to be students at relevant time.
12. 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. 0265/2024, under
Sections 308/323/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Gokul Puri and 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 the learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JULY 18, 2024/v
