[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Ahuja vs State on 10 April, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15.01.2026
Pronounced on: 10.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 255/2021
VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS
Mukherjee Nagar
WITH
+ CRL.A. 442/2023
STATE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS
Mukherjee Nagar
versus
VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Respondent
Through: Mr Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8797/2025
VINOD KUMAR AHUJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Anil Kumar Pruthi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate and SI Sanjeeta, PS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALICRL.A. 255/2021, CRL.A. 442/2023 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 Page 1 of 21
PRUTHI
Signing Date:10.04.2026
17:04
Mukherjee Nagar
Mr. Sarthak Tomar and Ms.
Maahi Tomar, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 255/2021 has been preferred by the
appellant/convict, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, against the Judgment dated
30th April, 2021, vide which, he was convicted under Section 325 of
the Indian Penal Code ["IPC"] and against the Order on Sentence
dated 04th May, 2021, vide which, he was sentenced to Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the appellant/convict was directed to
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
2. The State has filed the cross appeal, being Crl. A. No.
442/2023, titled "State v. Vinod Kumar Ahuja", assailing the said
Judgment and Order, and praying for conviction of the
appellant/convict under Section 307 IPC and for enhancement of
sentence awarded to him.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid cross appeals, the
appellant/convict, Vinod Kumar Ahuja filed Crl. M.C. 1952/2025
under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
["BNSS"] [old Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("CrPC")] for quashing of FIR bearing No. 258/2012, under Section
307 IPC, at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, on the ground of an amicable compromise with
the injured, Jitender Kumar.
4. As the cross appeals and the petition arise from common facts
and issues, and from the same FIR, they are being taken up together
for disposal by way of this common judgment. For the sake of
convenience, the appellant in Crl. A. 255/2021, Vinod Kumar Ahuja,
shall hereinafter be referred to as, the 'accused'.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
5. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Sh. Kishan Lal
Dawar (PW-1), used to run a kiryana shop at 38, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi, which was just three houses away from his residential house.
The accused, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, used to run a cloth shop, which
was adjacent to the kiryana shop of the PW-1. On 10th August, 2012 at
about 9:30 pm, when PW-1 reached his shop, his son Jitender (PW-2)
told him that in the morning he had an altercation with the accused,
Vinod Kumar Ahuja, as after sprinkling some water in front of his
shop, the accused had thrown away the remaining water on the side of
their shop due to which the articles kept there got damaged. When
PW-2, Jitender, was apprising the complainant (PW-1) about the
incident, the accused came out from his shop with a long knife in his
hand and stated "Aaj Inko Sabak Sikha Deta Hoon", and thereafter
immediately stabbed the complainant (PW-1) in his stomach. When
PW-2, Jitender, tried to rescue his father, the accused stabbed him on
his neck and abdomen. At the time of the incident, PW-4 Rajeev
Kumar and PW-5 Manish Batra were also present at the spot and thus,
were the eye-witnesses to the incident
6. On receiving the information, Gagan (PW-3), the elder son of
the complainant, reached the spot. However, in the meanwhile, the
accused ran away from the spot.
7. PW-3 Gagan took the complainant and Jitender to a Trauma
Centre, where they were medically examined. PW-14A, SI Brij
Bhushan and PW-11, Constable Rajender came at the Trauma Centre,
collected the MLCs of the injured and recorded the statement (Ex.
PW-1/A) of PW-1 Kishan Lal Dawar, prepared the Rukka (Ex. PW-
14/A) and sent the same to the police station through PW-11, and on
the basis of the said Rukka, FIR No. 258/2012 (Ex. PW-6/B) was
registered.
8. The Crime Team inspected the spot of occurrence and took the
photographs of the place of occurrence. The accused was arrested vide
Arrest Memo (Ex. PW-11/A). His personal search was conducted vide
Memo (Ex. PW-11/B) and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-11/C)
was recorded.
9. During investigation, PW-14A prepared the site plan of
occurrence (Ex. PW-14/B). However, the weapon of offence, that is, a
knife, could not be recovered. The opinion of the doctor was obtained
regarding the nature of injuries of the victim. After completing the
investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section
307 IPC.
10. On 18th April 2013, a Charge under Section 307 IPC was
framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19
witnesses, as per the following details:
S. No. Name of prosecution Deposition made by the witnesses
witness
1. PW-1 Sh. Kishan Lal They are the injured witnesses.
Dawar and PW-2 Sh. They deposed about the incident
Jitender Kumar in question. PW-1 proved his
statement as Ex. PW-1/A.
2. PW-3 Sh. Gagan He is the son of PW-1 and brother
of PW-2. He had rushed the
injured persons to the hospital.
3. PW-4 Rajeev Kumar He is the eye-witness of the
occurrence. He corroborated the
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2
regarding the incident.
4. PW-5 Sh. Manish Batra As per prosecution case, he was
also an eye-witness of the
occurrence. However, he did not
completely support the
prosecution case and was declared
hostile and cross-examined by the
learned APP on behalf of the
State.
5. PW-6 HC Arvind Kumar He was working as Duty Officer
at the relevant time. He proved
DD entry Ex. PW-6/A and FIR
Ex. PW-6/B.
6. PW-7 SI Ramesh Chand He was in charge of the Mobile
Crime Team at the relevant time.
He had visited the spot and
prepared the Inspection Report
Ex. PW-7/A.
7. PW-7A Constable He was posted as Constable in the
Subhash (inadvertently, Crime Team at the relevant time.
numbered as PW-7) He had taken the photographs of
the place of occurrence. He
proved the negatives of the
photographs as Ex. PW-7/A1 to
Ex. PW-7/A7 and the
photographs as Ex. PW-7/B
(colly.)
8. PW-8 W. Constable She was posted in PCR at the
Suman relevant period. She proved the
PCR Form Ex. PW-8/A.
9. PW-9 Dr. Abhishek He had examined PW-1 Kishan
Kumar Lal Dawar at Fortis Hospital. He
proved his report as Ex. PW-9/A
to Ex. PW-9/J.
10. PW-10 HC Anand He was posted as Beat Constable
Kumar in the area where the incident in
question took place. On hearing
the noise, he reached at the spot
of occurrence. He is a witness of
the investigation.
11. PW-11 Constable He had assisted the IO in the
Rajender investigation of the case. He is a
witness to the arrest documents
and the disclosure statement of
the accused.
12. PW-12 Dr. Shalabh He had examined both the injured
Agarwal at Fortis Hospital. He proved the
Discharge Summaries of both the
injured as Ex. PW-12/A and Ex.
PW-12/B.
13. PW-13 Dr. Dheeraj He proved the MLCs of injured
Jitender and Kishan Kumar
Dawar as Ex. PW-13/A and Ex.
PW-13/B respectively.
14. PW-14 Dr. J.K. Basu He came to depose on behalf of
Dr. Satender Pal. Upon seeing the
MLCs Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-
13/B, he deposed that the nature
of injuries has been opined as
'dangerous to life' by Dr.
Satender Pal.
15. PW-14A (inadvertently He was the first IO of this case.
wrongly numbered as He had prepared the Rukka Ex.
PW-14) SI Brij Bhushan PW-14/A, rough site plan Ex.
PW-14/B and also proved the
MLC of accused Vinod Kumar
Ahuja as Ex. PW-14/DA.
16. PW-15 Dr. Surbhi She was working with Fortis
Hospital at the relevant time. She
had examined PW-1 Kishan Lal
Dawar and proved the reports Ex.
PW-15/A to Ex. PW-15/C.
17. PW-16 Dr. Atul N.C. He was working at Fortis Hospital
Peters at the relevant time. He had
examined both the injured.
18. PW-17 ASI Kailash He was posted as MHC(M) at the
Chand relevant time. He deposed about
the deposit of two pullandas in
the Malkhana on 11.08.2012.
12. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to
him. According to him, Jitender, son of Kishan Kumar, had thrown
water and garbage in front of his shop and when he objected, Jitender
called his father and brother and they all, armed with dandas and
sarias, trespassed into his shop and gave him beatings. Upon hearing
commotion, his mother, who was inside the house, tried to intervene.
The above said persons also gave beatings to his mother and caused a
fracture in her hand. He further stated that the police did not record his
statement and also did not take any action, and therefore, he had to file
a complaint against Kishan Lal Dawar, Jitender and Gagan.
13. In order to prove the aforesaid defence, the accused examined 7
witnesses.
14. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide Judgment dated 30th April,
2021, the accused was convicted under Section 325 of the IPC, and
vide Order on Sentence dated 04th May, 2021, the sentence noted
hereinabove was imposed on the accused. Aggrieved of the same, the
cross appeals have been filed by the accused and the State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
15. The learned APP, appearing for the State, has submitted that the
learned Trial Court, despite duly appreciating the ocular testimonies of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5 and observing that the injuries were
inflicted by the accused and were opined to be dangerous to life, erred
in convicting the accused only under Section 325 of the IPC. He
submitted that the consistent and corroborated evidence on record
establishes that the accused assaulted PW-1 and PW-2 with a knife on
vital parts of their body, namely, their abdomen and neck. Such an act,
by its very nature, clearly discloses the intention and knowledge
requisite for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
16. It was further argued that the non-recovery of the weapon of
offence could not have been a determinative factor to dilute the
offence from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC. The intention to
commit murder can be gathered from the nature of the weapon used,
the part of the body targeted, and the manner of assault, and it is not
essential that the injury actually caused should be sufficient in the
ordinary course to cause death. In the present case, stabbing on the
abdomen and neck with a sharp weapon, unequivocally establishes the
intention of the accused to cause death.
17. The learned APP further submitted that the sentence awarded is
grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
The learned ASJ erred in granting undue leniency on the ground of
delay in trial, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Supreme
Court, wherein it has been held that misplaced sympathy undermines
public confidence in the justice delivery system. Thus, according to
him, the impugned judgment warrants interference and the conviction
under Section 325 IPC deserves to be set aside and the accused is
liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC, with an enhanced
sentence.
18. Learned APP for the State submits that Crl. A. 255/2021 is
liable to be dismissed as accused is not challenging the conviction on
merits. With regard to quashing of the FIR and the proceedings
emanating therefrom, including the Judgment of Conviction, it has
been submitted that the same is not possible at this stage, inasmuch as,
the accused Vinod Kumar Ahuja has already been convicted and the
appeal filed by the State for conviction under Section 307 IPC and
enhancement of sentence is also pending.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/CONVICT:
19. The learned counsel, who appears for the accused, submitted
that the medical evidence does not prove the depth of the injuries and
even the weapon of the offence has not been recovered. He submitted
that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the
moment. The convict had no intention to inflict injuries sufficient to
cause death and thus the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not
proved.
20. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the
accused does not challenge the Judgment of Conviction dated 30th
April, 2021, whereby, he has been convicted under Section 325 IPC,
as he has entered into a compromise with the victim, Jitender Kumar,
vide Compromise Deed dated 15th February, 2024 (Annexure-B in Crl.
M.C. 1952/2025). It has been submitted that both the parties are close
relatives of each other and have arrived at the said settlement, thereby,
agreeing to settle all their disputes amicably without any pressure,
threat, coercion, or undue influence of any kind whatsoever. PW-2,
Jitender Kumar, has further agreed to get the FIR No. 258/2012, under
Section 307 IPC, PS Mukherjee Nagar and all the proceedings
emanating from the said FIR, including conviction, sentence, charges
etc. against the accused quashed.
21. It has also been submitted that as per the Compromise Deed, the
accused has also agreed to withdraw the Criminal Complaint bearing
No. 3260/2016, titled "Vinod Kumar Ahuja v. Kishan Lal Dawar &
Ors.", under Sections 452/325/34/506/120-B of the IPC, which is
pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North. It is also
submitted that the accused has already made payment of Rs. 50,000/-
to PW-2 at the time of signing of the compromise deed, and the
balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of
the FIR.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
22. As the outcome of Crl. A. 255/2021 and Crl. M.C. 1952/2025
are dependent on the outcome of Crl.A. 442/2023 filed by the State,
we shall consider Crl.A. 442/2023 first.
23. Having carefully examined the impugned Judgment dated 30th
April, 2021 and the Order on Sentence dated 04th May, 2021 as also
the records of the case, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or
non-application of judicial mind, warranting interference in appellate
jurisdiction of this Court with the conviction of the accused under
Section 325 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. The learned Trial
Court has undertaken a detailed appreciation of the ocular and medical
evidence on record and has assigned cogent reasons for arriving at the
conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence
under Section 325 IPC, while the ingredients of Section 307 IPC were
not established beyond reasonable doubt.
24. The prosecution case is based upon the testimony of PW-1
Kishan Lal Dawar, PW-2 Jitender Kumar (both injured persons) and
eye-witnesses namely PW-4 Rajeev Kumar and PW-5 Manish Batra.
Admittedly, the injured and accused were having shops adjacent to
each other. Upon appreciation of the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnesses as also the medical evidence and the testimonies of the
defence witnesses, the learned Trial Court found that there was a petty
quarrel between the parties over sprinkling of water. Even though the
learned Trial Court found that there appears to be some truth in the
defence version of the accused, but in view of the testimonies of PW-
1, PW-2 & PW-4, which were consistent and reliable, it formed the
opinion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was concluded that the accused had
caused stab injuries on the abdomen of PW-1 and PW-2 and also on
the back of head of PW-2, and such injuries were opined to be
'dangerous' to their life. However, since the weapon of the offence
could not be recovered, and in the absence of any medical opinion
regarding the depth of injuries, the learned Trial Court held that it
could not be established that there was an attempt to cause murder of
the victims so as to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC. The
relevant paragraphs of the Trial Court judgment are reproduced
hereunder:
"43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the considered opinion that though
there seems to be some truth in the defence
version of the accused, but keeping in view the
testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW4, which are
consistent and reliable, the prosecution has
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubts. It has been proved on record that
accused was present at the spot and he had
caused stab injuries on the abdomen of PW1
and PW and also on the back of head of PW2,
which were opined to be dangerous to their
life.
44. As per case of prosecution, the accused
has caused injuries to both PW1 and PW with
knife. However, admittedly, there is no
recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife in the
present case. PW14 SI Brij Bhushan is the
investigating officer of this case. As per his
testimony, accused was arrested in the present
case and thereafter he made efforts for search
of weapon of offence, but in vain. Even all the
eye-witnesses have stated that accused was
holding a knife, but its specific description is
not given as to of which metal it was, whether
steel or iron. PW1 Kishan Lal has simply
deposed that it was a long knife. In the
absence of non-recovery of knife, it cannot be
ascertained as to what was the length, breadth
of the knife, whether its handle was of wooden
or steel etc. The depth of the injuries sustained
by PW1 & PW2 could have been ascertained if
the recovery of weapon of offence has been
effected, which is not the case herein. In
absence thereof, benefit in this regard can be
extended to the accused. The nature of injuries
sustained by PW1 and PW2 can be said to be
covered u/s 325 IPC.
45. In the present case, the accused has
been charged with the offence u/s 307 IPC. As
already discussed above, there are four eye-
witnesses to the incident and they have
established the case of the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubts, but even after considering
the whole evidence, the fact regarding weapon
of offence could not be ascertained nor the
type of weapon could be established being not
recovered by the investigating agency. There
are injuries on the stomach of both the injured
persons and there is also injury on the neck of
PW2, but there is no averment from the
medical side regarding the depth of the
injuries, whereby it could have been
established that there was an attempt to cause
murder of the victims so as to fall u/s 307 IPC.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the benefit of
non-recovery of weapon of offence has to be
extended to the accused. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, the accused is held guilty
for the offence u/s 325 IPC and is convicted
thereunder."
25. Since the accused is not challenging the Impugned Judgment of
Conviction and even the State is not challenging the findings of the
learned Trial Court to the extent that it holds the accused guilty, even
though, it challenges the conviction under a milder offence, we may
not go into an in-depth appreciation of the testimonies of the injured
and the eye-witnesses, inasmuch as, the decision with regard to
conviction under Section 307 or 325 IPC would mainly depend upon
the medical evidence produced before the Court.
26. The prosecution has proved the MLCs of the victims, Jitendra
Kumar and Kishan Lal, through PW-13 Dr. Dheeraj, which are Ex.
PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B respectively. According to him, on
examination of PW-2, he found following injuries:
(i) sharp incised injury wound over left lower abdomen perforated
gut coming out through wound;
(ii) lacerated wound on occipital region (lower) of
approximately 8 x 2 cm size.
27. Similarly, upon examination, PW-1 Kishan Lal was found
having a lacerated wound on middle upper abdomen, sized 4 x 2 cm,
with omentum coming out through the wound.
28. In cross examination, PW-13 stated that he had not mentioned
the depth of any injuries in the MLCs- Ex. PW-13/A and PW-13/B.
He admitted that he had also not given the size of injury no. 1 in the
MLC Ex. PW-13A.
29. PW-14 Dr. J.K. Basu, who was deputed by the Medical
Superintendent of Sushrut Trauma Centre to depose on behalf of Dr.
Satender Pal, after seeing the MLC, deposed that as per both the
MLCs, the nature of injuries has been opined as 'dangerous to life.'
30. Admittedly, there is no recovery of weapon of offence, and
therefore, it is not known as to what type of knife was used. The
length of the knife is also not known. Though it is a settled law that
non-recovery of the weapon is not always fatal to the case of the
prosecution, however, in the present case, the alleged weapon forms
the core of the prosecution story and its absence assumes significance
in the light of the fact that MLCs do not specify the depth of the
injuries.
31. The medical evidence does not unequivocally establish that the
injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
that it was inflicted with such force and intention so as to attract
Section 307 IPC. In order to sustain conviction under Section 307
IPC, it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or
knowledge as would have made the act amount to murder if death had
ensued. In the present case, the incident of altercation took place
between PW-2 and the accused at 5:00-6:00 pm on the petty issue of
sprinkling of water towards the shop of PW-2, due to which his stock
was damaged, while the incident of stabbing took place at 9:30 pm
when PW-2 was narrating the incident to his father. It appears from
the evidence that accused got enraged while PW-2 was complaining to
his father about the previous incident and lost his cool and brought a
knife and stabbed PW-1 and PW-2.
32. We are of the view that the act of stabbing was, therefore, not
premeditated, thus ruling out any intention on part of the accused to
cause death. The prosecution has therefore failed to establish that
accused had the intent to cause the murder of the victims, so as to
attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. We therefore do not find
any infirmity in the impugned judgment, insofar as, it convicts the
accused under Section 325 IPC.
33. Coming to the appeal and the petition filed by the accused, as
noted herein above, the accused does not press his appeal against his
conviction. Instead, it has been submitted that during the pendency of
the appeals, one of the injured, namely, Kishan Lal Dawar, who was
the father of the second injured, namely, Jitender, has since expired on
14th January 2024 and settlement dated 15th February, 2024 has been
arrived at between the accused, Vinod Kumar Ahuja, and PW-2,
Jitender. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel for the accused
that the sentence of the accused be reduced.
34. PW-2, Jitender, on being asked, reiterated the factum of the
settlement. He stated that he has amicably settled the disputes with the
accused, of his own free volition and without any fear, coercion,
inducement or pressure of any kind. His affidavit in this regard is also
already on record. He further confirms that he has received a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- from the accused at the time of signing of the
compromise deed on 15th February, 2024, and the balance amount of
Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR. He stated
that he has no objection to the quashing of the FIR bearing No.
258/2012, under Section 307 IPC, PS Mukherjee Nagar and the
subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
35. In the present case, compromise has been reached between the
parties after conviction of the accused. This Court, in exercise of
power under Section 528 of BNSS, is empowered to pass orders to
secure the ends of justice. While admittedly, the High Court should be
slow in quashing the proceedings when the parties compromise the
matter at a belated stage, however, the High Court is not precluded
from considering the factum of settlement between the victim and the
accused at the appellate stage.
36. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, was considering a case where
the accused had been convicted for the offences under Sections
294/323/326/34 IPC. On an appeal based on settlement, the Appellate
Court had compounded the offences under Section 294/323/34 IPC,
acquitting the accused, however, had maintained the conviction under
Section 326/34 IPC, since the offence was not compoundable, thereby
reducing the sentence from three years to one year. The High Court
also did not quash the conviction based on the compromise, but
reduced the sentence to the period undergone. In these facts, the
Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in not exercising its
powers under Section 482 CrPC, and observed as under:
"11. True it is that offences which are "non-
compoundable" cannot be compounded by a
criminal court in purported exercise of its
powers under Section 320 CrPC. Any such
attempt by the court would amount to
alteration, addition and modification of
Section 320 CrPC, which is the exclusive
domain of legislature. There is no patent or
latent ambiguity in the language of Section
320 CrPC, which may justify its wider
interpretation and include such offences in the
docket of "compoundable" offences which
have been consciously kept out as non-
compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited
jurisdiction to compound an offence within the
framework of Section 320 CrPC is not an
embargo against invoking inherent powers by
the High Court vested in it under Section 482
CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and
for justifiable reasons can press Section 482
CrPC in aid to prevent abuse of the process of
any court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard
to the nature of the offence and the fact that
parties have amicably settled their dispute and
the victim has willingly consented to the
nullification of criminal proceedings, can
quash such proceedings in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC,
even if the offences are non-compoundable.
The High Court can indubitably evaluate the
consequential effects of the offence beyond the
body of an individual and thereafter adopt a
pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with
or paralyse the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the
offences are pre-dominantly of a private
nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact
that trial has already been concluded or
appeal stands dismissed against conviction.
Handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Societal method of applying
laws evenly is always subject to lawful
exceptions. It goes without saying, that the
cases where compromise is struck post-
conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view
the circumstances surrounding the incident,
the fashion in which the compromise has been
arrived at, and with due regard to the nature
and seriousness of the offence, besides the
conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC
would be to secure the ends of justice. There
can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the
power of the High Court to do substantial
justice. A restrictive construction of inherent
powers under Section 482 CrPC may lead to
rigid or specious justice, which in the given
facts and circumstances of a case, may rather
lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in
cases where heinous offences have been
proved against perpetrators, no such benefit
ought to be extended, as cautiously observed
by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan [State of
M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688,
para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] ."
37. This Court has also been informed that the parties are relatives
of each other and one more criminal complaint bearing no. 3260/2016,
titled as "Vinod Kumar Ahuja v. Kishan Lal Dawar & Ors." under
Sections 452/325/506/120-B IPC filed by the accused against the
victims is pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
and the parties have now amicably settled their disputes. The incident
in the present case pertains to the year 2012 and after facing trial for
about 9 years, the accused was convicted, and the cross appeals filed
by the accused and the State are pending since then.
38. The injured/victim, Jitender, has categorically stated that he
does not want to pursue any proceedings against the accused and has
entered into compromise out of his own volition.
39. The learned Trial Court in its impugned order of sentence dated
04.05.2021 had itself recorded that the accused is the sole earning
member of his family, has shown good conduct, is a first time
offender and the dispute was between family members on a trivial
issue of throwing water. Hence, considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the parties have
amicably resolved their differences of their own free will and without
any coercion, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be
served by incarcerating the accused to prison, rather, the same would
create further acrimony between the parties.
40. Appellant is stated to be the first time offender, the offence is
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years. Considering
the circumstances in which the offence was committed, indicate that it
was not premeditated but arose out of a sudden quarrel. We are
therefore of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to benefit of
probation. However, since the State machinery has been put to motion
and the settlement is arrived at a belated stage, ends of justice would
be served if the appellant is put to cost.
CONCLUSION:
41. Accordingly, Crl. A. 442/2023, filed by the State is dismissed.
However, while maintaining conviction of accused Vinod Kumar
Ahuja, under Section 325 IPC, having regard to the age, character and
antecedents of the accused and taking note of the circumstances in
which the offence was committed, instead of sentencing the convict at
once to any punishment, we deem it expedient that appellant should be
released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, upon
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety
of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar General with
direction that he shall appear and receive the sentence when called for
during such period, and in the meanwhile, he shall keep peace and be
of good behaviour with further condition that accused shall abide by
the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the
parties and shall deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) with the Army Central Welfare Fund maintained with Union
Bank of India, Branch: Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, bearing
Account No. 520101236373338, IFSC Code: UBIN0530778, within a
period of four (04) weeks from today.
42. Crl. A. 255/2021 and Crl. MC 1952/2025 are disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid directions.
43. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent and the learned Trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
APRIL 10, 2026/na/RM
