VIVEK KUMAR  Vs STATE OF NCT/ DELHI

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 1 of 10
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 23.12.2020
Pronounced on: 07.01.2021

+ CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 & CRL.M.A. 17929/2020 (for im pleadment)

VIVEK KUMAR & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through Mr. Atul Parmar and Mr. Abhishek
Parmar, Advocates

versus

STATE OF NCT/ DELHI & ORS. ….. Respond ents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT
Crl. M.A. 17929/2020
This is an application filed by the Applicants nam ely Navneet
Kumar Chhoker and Dhruv Chhoker seeking impleadment in the present
petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the sam e is allowed. The
applicants are impleaded as Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the petition.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CRL.M.C. 1555/2020
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 C r.PC by the
Petitioners herein for quashing of FIR No.102/2020 dated 13.03.2020
under Sections 308/34 IPC, PS Jyoti Nagar, based on
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 2 of 10
compromise/settlement Deeds between the Petitioners and the
complainants/Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein.
2. The allegations against the Petitioners as set out in the Status
Report filed by the State are that the complainants namely Saurabh and
Rohit Dhaka while on their way back from a park of ‘S’ Block, West
Jyoti Nagar, at about 8.30 p.m., saw a boy namely V ivek Chaudhary who
resides at ‘D’ Block Street No.9, West Jyoti Nagar armed with an iron
rod. He alongwith his pet dog came to the complaina nts alongwith two
unknown companions having sticks and told the compl ainants that they
had earlier escaped on Holi but today they will be taught a lesson and
before the complainants could understand the situat ion, both the
companions of Vivek grabbed the complainants from t heir elbows. Vivek
hit the complainants with iron rods several times a nd also unleashed his
dog over one of the complainants because of which h e started bleeding.
Due to the noise, several persons came out of their houses, upon which
the Petitioners slipped away. Injured were taken to the hospital and
treated. Thereafter, the police was informed and FI R was registered.
3. Initially, the present petition was filed by Vivek Kumar on the
basis of a Settlement Deed executed on 27.06.2020 b etween him and the
two complainants. Affidavits have also been filed b y the complainants in
support of the settlement and quashing of FIR.
4. During the pendency of the petition, an Additional Status Report
was filed on the basis of a supplementary written s tatement given by one
of the complainant. It was brought out in the Statu s Report that the two
other alleged assailants who were unidentified at t he time of registration
of the FIR, had been traced and identified. Their n ames were mentioned
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 3 of 10
in the Status Report alongwith their addresses and respective dates of
birth. As per the Status Report, the school records were verified and it
was found that both were juveniles at the time of c ommission of the
alleged offence. Subsequent to the filing of the sa id Status Report, the
two applicants filed an impleadment application for being impleaded in
the present petition and seeking a relief of quashi ng the FIR on the basis
of a settlement entered into between them and the c omplainants on
16.12.2020. Copy of the Settlement Deed was placed on record.
5. The complainants/Respondent Nos.3 & 4 appeared in C ourt and
submitted that the disputes between the parties hav e been amicably
resolved. As per the Compromise Deeds, the said Res pondents have
amicably settled the matter, without any force and coercion and without
seeking any compensation. It is further stated in t he compromise deeds
that the respondents have no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
Settlement Deeds and have also filed affidavits sup porting the petition.
MLC has been placed on record by the State, which r eveals that the injury
suffered by the complainants was simple.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that th e Petitioners are
young boys. While Petitioner No.1 is 21 years of ag e and is currently
studying in BCA Course, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are in school. They have
no past criminal record and belong to good families . The complainants
have without any force or coercion entered into an amicable settlement
with the Petitioners and support the relief sought by the Petitioners in the
present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and th us the FIR be quashed.
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 4 of 10
7. Learned APP for the State has opposed the petition on the ground
that the allegations against the Petitioners are se rious in nature as they are
alleged to have assaulted the complainants with iro n sticks causing
injuries to them including unleashing the dog, resu lting in dog bites. It is
argued that no case of quashing is made out.
8. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the
Supreme Court observed that while dealing with the issue of quashing an
FIR when the parties enter into an amicable resolut ion of disputes, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal p roceedings despite a
compromise between the victim and the wrong doer an d if the answer to
the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Rel evant paragraphs are as
follow:-
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal procee ding
having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender
and victim has been settled although the offences a re not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continu ation of
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futilit y and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the pa rties is put
to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts
which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong
doing that seriously endangers and threatens the we ll-being of
society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because
he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crim es have
been made compoundable in law, with or without the
permission of the Court. In respect of serious offe nces like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of m ental
depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 5 of 10
special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between offender and victi m can have
no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having
arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financ ial,
partnership or such like transactions or the offenc es arising
out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, e tc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically to vic tim and the
offender and victim have settled all disputes betwe en them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offenc es have not
been made compoundable, the High Court may within t he
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is sa tisfied that
on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood
of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall
be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard- and-fast
category can be prescribed.

xxx xxx xxx

61. The position that emerges from the above discus sion
can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct a nd different
from the power given to a criminal court for compou nding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent p ower is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or ( ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court. In what cases po wer to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR m ay be
exercised where the offender and the victim have se ttled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However, b efore
exercise of such power, the High Court must have du e regard
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 6 of 10
to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murde r, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even thou gh the
victim or victim’s family and the offender have set tled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature an d have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromis e between
the victim and the offender in relation to the offe nces under
special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for qu ashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But t he
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominat ingly
civil flavor stand on a different footing for the p urposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from co mmercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such l ike
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimo ny relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wro ng is
basically private or personal in nature and the par ties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the acc used to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustic e would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with th e victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whethe r it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of just ice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuati on of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of pr ocess of
law despite settlement and compromise between the v ictim
and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the affir mative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.”

2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 7 of 10
9. In a later judgement in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State
of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court reiterated the
same proposition and the relevant part of the judge ment in the present
context is as follows :-
“29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Cour t to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code . No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Cour t has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings ev en in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the p arties
have settled the matter between themselves. However , this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution .

29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement a nd on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proce edings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
while exercising the power the High Court is to for m an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3 Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offe nces of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dac oity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences all eged to have
been committed under special statute like the Preve ntion of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashe d merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and t he
offender.

29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transa ctions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family d isputes
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 8 of 10
should be quashed when the parties have resolved th eir entire
disputes among themselves.”

10. There is no doubt on the proposition that the inher ent powers of a
High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC should be exerc ised sparingly and
with great caution. Needless to state that only whe n the Court comes to a
conclusion from the facts and circumstances of the case that continuing
the criminal proceedings would result in injustice or would manifest in
abuse of the process of the Court, that it would ex ercise the inherent
power and quash the proceedings and not otherwise. This is so held by
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI vs.
Vikram Anatrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 and in the case of Inder
Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 S CC 1 . It is thus
equally well settled that in a case where the High Court is convinced that
the alleged offences are personal in nature and do not affect public peace
or tranquility and that quashing of the proceedings on the basis of a
compromise or settlement would secure the ends of j ustice, it should
exercise the power to quash the proceedings. Looked at from another
angle, in such cases, even pursuing prosecution wou ld be sheer waste of
time and energy.
11. It is true that the offence in the present case is under Section 308
IPC which is a non-compoundable offence, however, i n the case of B.S.
Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Supreme Court had
observed that even though provisions of Section 320 Cr. PC would not
apply to offences which are not compoundable, it di d not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 Cr. PC. The Court held that if for the
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 9 of 10
purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 Cr. PC would not be a bar to the exercise of such
power. In other words, the Supreme Court found it j ust to exercise the
power under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash criminal pr oceedings in view of
the special facts of the case, even where the offen ces were non-
compoundable, to secure ends of justice.
12. In the present case as noted above, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have
entered into an amicable settlement with the Petiti oners and resolved their
disputes. The settlement deeds are on record alongw ith the affidavits in
support of the petition. The said Respondents have been identified by the
learned APP. The petitioners are young boys going t o College and
School, respectively and the nature of injury alleg edly inflicted on the
complainants is simple. It is undisputed by the Sta te that the Petitioners
are not involved in any other criminal case and the antecedents are clear.
13. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioners and th e learned APP
and looking to the facts and circumstances of the c ase, I am of the view
that this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction un der Section 482 Cr.PC, as it
would be futile if the proceedings are carried on f urther and quashing of
the FIR would secure the ends of justice. As observ ed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Anand Singh & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Anr., 2016 SCC Online Del 5292 , the incorporation of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr. PC is to deal with situation in the absence of
expressed provisions of law, to secure ends of just ice such as, where the
process is abused or misused; where ends of justice cannot be secured;
where process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid
2021:DHC:59

CRL.M.C. 1555/2020 Page 10 of 10
causing harassment to any person or to avoid delay of legal process in the
delivery of justice.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case and i n view of the
affidavits given by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the FIR in question warrants
to be quashed alongwith the proceedings emanating t herefrom.
15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.102 /2020 dated
13.03.2020 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at PS Jyoti Nagar and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed aga inst the Petitioners.
Petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- each w ith the Delhi High
Court Advocates Welfare Trust as costs.

(JYOTI SINGH)
JUDGE
JANUARY 7th , 2021
yg

2021:DHC:59