Delhi High Court
Kartik Rastogi & Anr. vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 30 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~35 & 47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30.07.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 4332/2024
KARTIK RASTOGI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rupal Luthra and Mr. Himanshu
Dagar, Advocates with petitioners
in-person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Neha
Poonia, PS: Krishna Nagar.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Dadlani, Advocate
for Respondent No. 2.
+ W.P.(CRL) 1664/2024
GAURAV RUSTAGI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suresh Dadlani and Mr. Ajit
Kumar, Advocates with petitioners
in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with
Ms. Namita Sharma, Ms. Monika
Sharma, Mr. Ankit Bhadoria and
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocates with
SI Neha Poonia, PS: Krishna Nagar.
Mr. Rupal Luthra and Mr. Himanshu
Dagar, Advocates for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C. 4332/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 1664/2024 Page 1 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:12.08.2024
15:38:04
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. W.P.(CRL) 1664/2024 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 (Gaurav Rustagi, Sourabh
Rustagi & Harish Chand) for quashing of FIR No. 0604/2020, under
Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Krishna Nagar and
proceedings emanating therefrom registered at instance of respondent No. 2/
B.R./abc.
2. CRL.M.C. 4332/2024 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on
behalf of the petitioners (Kartik Rastogi and Om Prakash) for quashing of
FIR No. 605/2020, under Sections 323/354/34 IPC, registered at P.S.:
Krishna Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom registered at instance
of respondent No. 2/P.R./XXXXXXX.
3. In brief, FIR No. 604/2020 was registered on complaint of B.R. who
alleged that on 28.12.2020, when she alongwith her mother C.K. went to
their house, she found that family members of her great uncle (Tauji/ Harish
Chand/ petitioner No. 3 in W.P.(CRL.) 1664/2024) had locked the ground
floor belonging to them. When BR asked for key, Sourabh Rustagi (son of
Harish Chand/ petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(CRL.) 1664/2024) assaulted
complainant and her mother and also inappropriately touched her. Harish
Chand is alleged to have pushed her and allegations of misbehaviour and use
of abusive language were also levelled against Gaurav Rustagi (petitioner
No. 1 in W.P.(CRL.) 1664/2024).
4. FIR No. 0605/2020 was further registered as a cross FIR, daughter-in-
law of Harish Chand that on 28.12.2020, Kartik Rastogi and Om Prakash
(petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in CRL.M.C. 4332/2024) came to her house and
touched her inappropriately. She also alleged that her husband (Gaurav
Rustagi) and father-in-law (Harish Chand) were beaten by Kartik Rastogi
and Om Prakash.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents in respective cases
submit that disputes between the parties relate to possession of property
bearing No. 11/151, Gali No. 10, West Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
and counter FIRs were lodged in respect of an incident relating to possession
of property on 28.12.2020. The disputes have been amicably settled between
the parties in terms of settlement dated 02.03.2024. They further urge that
petitioners in respective cases have clean past antecedents as confirmed by
the learned APP for the State.
6. Learned APP/ ASC for the State in respective cases submit that in
view of amicable settlement between the parties they have no objection in
case the FIRs in question are 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. Parties are present in person in respective cases and have been
identified by SI Neha, P.S.: Krishna Nagar. I have interacted with them and
they confirm that disputes have been amicably settled between them without
any threat, pressure or coercion. Further, they have no grievance in this
regard and pray that FIR's be quashed.
10. Parties intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out of
differences over issue relating to possession of property. 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 in
respective cases 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. 604/2020, under
Sections 354/323/506/34 and FIR No. 605/2020, under Sections 323/354/34
IPC, both registered at P.S.: Krishna Nagar and proceedings emanating
therefrom stand quashed.
12. In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the
petitioners, they are directed to plant 20 saplings of Neem trees each, which
are upto 03 feet in height in the area of Krishna Nagar 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 IO / SHO, PS: Krishna Nagar. 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.
Petitions are 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.
A copy of this order be kept in connected petition.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JULY 30, 2024/R
