ALI QURESHI vs STATE & ANR.

$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2474/2024
ALI QURESHI AND ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.K.Bhandari, Ms.Sneh Lata Jha, Mr.Abid Khan and Ms.Neelu Gupta, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus

STATE AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State alongwith ASI Rakesh Singh, P.S. Sadar Bazar.
Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under 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. 694/2023, under Sections 324/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Sadar Bazar and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on 27.06.2023 on complaint of respondent No.2/complainant who alleged that he was facing a lot of problems due to construction of House No. 6306, Gali No.4, Nawab Road, Delhi. Since a complaint was filed with MCD against unauthorised construction, the relations between parties were strained. On 27.06.2023, when officials from MCD visited the said property, he was assaulted by Hamza Nawab (petitioner No.2) alongwith his brother Ali Qureshi (petitioner No.1) causing injuries on his person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners as well as respondent No.2 (complainant/victim) reside in vicinity and the disputes arose owing to construction being carried out in the aforesaid property, which has been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Settlement Deed dated 15.03.2024. It is also urged that petitioners are real brothers aged about 26 & 31 years respectively and have clean past antecedents. He further points out that injuries sustained by the complainant/respondent No.2 are simple in nature and he was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. 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.
7. Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by ASI Rakesh Singh, P.S. Sadar Bazar. 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 No. 2 submits that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and he has no further grievance in this regard.
8. Parties being neighbours intend to put quietus to the proceedings. 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. Also, no past involvement of the petitioners has been brought to the notice of this Court.
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. 694/2023, under Sections 324/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Sadar Bazar and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing costs upon the petitioners, they are directed to plant 50 saplings of trees, which are upto 03 feet in height on the banks of Yamun River 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, P.S. Sadar Bazar. 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. 50,000/- 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 the learned Trial Court for information.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 07, 2024/v

CRL.M.C. 2474/2024 Page 4 of 4