Delhi High Court
Aadil Malik & Ors. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 26 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.07.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 207/2024
AADIL MALIK & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Shabbir Ali and Mr.Ajay Raj
Singh, Advocates along with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the
State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr.
Vasu Agarwal, Mr.Hirak Anand and
Mr.Vikas Gond, Advocates alongwith
SI Kailash, P.S. Shaheen Bagh.
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 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. 422/2023,
under Sections 323/341/308/34 IPC, registered at PS: Shaheen Bagh and
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered
on complaint of respondent No.2 (Mohd. Azam) who alleged that he had
lent Rs. 70,000/- to his friend petitioner No.2 (Sahil) to open a restaurant in
partnership. However Sahil failed to open the restaurant and returned back
only an amount Rs. 40,000/- to respondent No.2. On 10.12.2023, respondent
No.2 (Mohd. Azam) received a call from Sahil on pretext of returning the
balance amount wherein he was assaulted along with his brother (Ayaan)
and Gulab by petitioners i.e., Sahil Malik, Mohd. Aamir, Adil Malik, Faizan
Malik and Shoyab Malik.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that disputes between
petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 2, who were close friends, was over a
minor issue of return of loan amount and matter has been mutually settled
between the parties. He points out that the nature of injury suffered by the
respondent nos. 2 to 4 was simple in nature and were discharged on the same
day.
4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are present in person, admit that disputes
have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Memorandum of
Understanding dated 11.01.2024 without any threat, pressure or coercion.
They further submit that they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed.
5. Learned ASC for the State submits that in view of amicable
settlement between the parties, he 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 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.
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, 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.
8. 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.
9. Petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Kailash, PS: Shaheen Bagh. 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 Nos. 2 to 4
submit that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled
and they have no further grievance in this regard.
10. Parties intend to put quietus to the proceedings, which arose over a
minor issue regarding return of loan amount. The nature of injuries suffered
by respondent No.2 to 4 is simple in nature. The settlement shall promote
harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life. Also
the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between
the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioners has been brought
to the notice of this Court.
11. 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. 422/2023, under
Sections 323/341/308/34 IPC, registered at PS: Shaheen Bagh and
proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
12. In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon
petitioners, they are directed to plant 20 saplings of Neem trees each, which
are upto 03 feet in height in the area of P.S.: Kalindi Kunj after getting in
touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD /
DDA / Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) through concerned IO / SHO, P.S.: Shaheen Bagh The
photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO / SHO concerned
shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of
the saplings / trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case
of non compliance of directions for planting of trees, the petitioners shall be
liable to deposit cost of Rs. 20,000/- each with the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JULY 26, 2024
p
