FAIZAN QURESHI & ORS. vs THE STATE OF GOVT OF NCT DELHI THROUGH SHO DARYA GANJ NEW DELHI & ANR.
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.05.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 4223/2024
FAIZAN QURESHI & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.Bharti, Mohd.Shuaib Khan, Ms.Praneet Kaur, Mr.Vivek Agarwal, Mr.Lovedeep Gaur and Mr.V.M. Popli with petitioners in person
versus
THE STATE OF GOVT OF NCT DELHI
THROUGH SHO DARYA GANJ,
NEW DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State alongwith SI Reeta, P.S. Darya Ganj.
Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate with 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)
CRL.M.A. 16021/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4223/2024
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 244/2021, under Sections 354D/506/509/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Darya Ganj and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on complaint of respondent No.2, a practicing Advocate, who alleged that petitioners in conspiracy used to harass her and also outraged her modesty by making objectionable gestures.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present FIR has been lodged on account of some differences and the same have been amicably resolved in terms of Settlement Deed dated 29.02.2024. He further submits that one of the co-accused namely, Ziauddin has since expired, which is confirmed by Investigating Officer.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Petitioners in person and respondent No. 2 (through VC) have been identified by SI Reeta, P.S. Darya Ganj. 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 since all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, she has no further grievance in this regard.
9. Petitioners and respondent No.2 intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out of some differences. 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 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. 244/2021, under Sections 354D/506/509/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Darya Ganj and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
10. In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioners, they are directed to plant 10 saplings of trees each, which are upto 03 feet in height along Ring Road in the area of P.S. Darya Ganj 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. Darya Ganj. 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. 10,000/- each 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 22, 2024/v
CRL.M.C. 4223/2024 Page 1 of 4