Delhi High Court
Sumit vs The State Of Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 20 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
+ W.P.(CRL.) 504/2024
SUMIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Hari Shankar, Advocate with
Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Ms.Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC for
State with Mr.Abhijeet Kumar,
Advocate alongwith SI Ravi Shankar,
PS Patel Nagar.
Respondent No.2-in-person with her
counsel.
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 petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 265/2021, under
Section 380 IPC, registered at P.S.: Patel Nagar.
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 30.06.2021 on the complaint of respondent No.2 who alleged that on
27.06.2021 her watch had been stolen and further cast suspicion on petitioner
who had visited her house from Urban Clap. Later on, during the course of
investigation, the aforesaid watch was recovered at the instance of the
petitioner and the charge-sheet was accordingly filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged
about 22 years at the time of alleged offence and expresses remorse over the
alleged incident. He further submits that the matter has been amicably settled
with the complainant in terms of the Settlement Deed dated 25.06.2023 and
the petitioner has clean past antecedent.
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 respondent No. 2 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Ravi Shankar, P.S.: Patel Nagar. I have interacted with
the parties and respondent No. 2 confirms that the matter has been amicably
settled without any threat, pressure or coercion and she has 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 any 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.
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
similar sections have also been quashed by Co-ordinate Benches of this court
in Rajiv Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., CRL.M.C. 1209/2016,
decided on 28.03.2016, Danish Ahmed v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
& Anr., CRL.M.C. 3673/2015, decided on 11.12.2015, and Ravinder Kumar
v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 5196/2015, decided on
19.02.2016.
9. In view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of
conviction in such a case is remote. 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. 265/2021, under Section 380 IPC, registered at P.S.:
Patel Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 20, 2024/v
