JAI SINGH ALIAS RAJ & ANR. Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.Judgment by Delhi High Court
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2833/2024, CRL.M.A. 10772/2024
JAI SINGH ALIAS RAJ & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Faheem Alam, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tomar,
SHO, P.S.: Tigri with SI Saurabh,
DPA Dwarka.
Mr. Inamuddin, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in-person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
$~77
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI%Date of Decision:10.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2833/2024, CRL.M.A. 10772/2024
JAI SINGH ALIAS RAJ & ANR…… PetitionersThrough:Mr. Faheem Alam, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVTOF NCT OF DELHI & ANR…… Respondents
Through:Ms. KiranBairwa, APP for State withInspector RavinderKumar Tomar,
SHO, P.S.:TigriwithSI Saurabh,
DPA Dwarka.
Mr. Inamuddin, Advocatefor R-2
with R-2in-person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA%J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1.Petitionunder Section482of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973
(�Cr.P.C.”) hasbeenpreferredonbehalf of the petitionersfor partlyquashing
of FIR No. 0176/2019, under Sections307/34IPC andSection27ArmsAct,
registeredatP.S:Tigri. Chargesheethasbeenfiledunder Sections307/201/34 IPC andSections 27/54/59 ArmsAct.
2.Inbrief, asper the case of prosecution, thepresentFIR wasregisteredonthe complaintof Rashid@ Tuttan, whoallegedthaton28.06.2019atabout 10:40 pm, he was called outside his house by accused Jai Singh @ Raj,
(petitioner no. 1), while other accusednamelyKamalKishor@ Rohit@
HoneySingh(petitioner no. 2) andMohd. Imran@ GoluandMominwere
CRL.M.C. 2833/2024Page1of 5
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
present outside the house. An altercation ensued and thereafter respondent
No. 2 was assaulted by the accused. Further, one of the accused Imran fired
two rounds with a pistol resulting in bullet injuries in the right leg of
respondent no. 2. Accused fled from the spot and were subsequently arrested
during the course of investigation.
presentoutside the house. Analtercationensuedandthereafter respondentNo. 2wasassaultedbythe accused. Further, one of the accusedImranfiredtworoundswitha pistolresultinginbulletinjuriesintherightlegofrespondentno. 2. Accusedfledfromthe spotandwere subsequentlyarrested
duringthe course of investigation.
3.Learnedcounselforthepetitioner Nos.1and2submitsthatthepetitionersandrespondentno. 2reside invicinityandthe matter hasbeenamicablysettled.Itisfurther pointedoutthatco-accusednamelyImran@
GoluandMominhave notbeenimpleadedaspartiestopresentproceedings,
since the matter has notbeen settled withthem by respondent No. 2.
4.Onthe other hand, learnedAPP for the State vehementlyopposesthe
petitionsincetheoffencefallsunder Section307IPC andco-accusedImran@ Goluwasarmedwithillegalweapons,whichwasusedforfiringinthe
incident and resultedingun-shot injuries to respondent No. 2.
5.Itiswell settledthat powers under Section482Cr.P.C. for quashingofnon-compoundable offencesshouldnotbe exercisedincasesinvolvingheinousandseriousoffencesof mentaldepravityor offenceslike murder,
rape,dacoity, etc.,asthe same have seriousimpactonsocietyandtheCourtshouldbe slowinexercisingthe discretionunder Section482Cr.P.C. inthese proceedings.
6.The offence under Section307IPC isregardedasa heinousandseriousoffenceasitisgenerallytreatedascrime againstthe societyandnot
the individualalone. However, the Courtisnotrequiredtorestitsdecisionmerelybecause Section307IPC isinvokedinthe FIR or charge buttheCourtmayexamine astowhether incorporationof Section307IPC isfor the
sake of itorif there issufficientevidence toprove the same. The nature of
CRL.M.C. 2833/2024Page2of 5
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
injuries sustained, the part of body on which the injury is inflicted, nature of
weapon used etc. along with medical report as to the nature of injuries
suffered by the victim are the guiding factors. No doubt, the Court is also to
consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and may
also look into if the settlement is likely to result in harmony between the
parties to improve their future relationship. The stage of quashing also
remains relevant. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Kapil Gupta v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2022) 15 SCC 44 wherein the
principles quoted in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466
were referred for quashing of proceedings under Section 376 IPC.
injuriessustained, the partof bodyonwhichthe injuryisinflicted, nature of
weaponusedetc. alongwithmedicalreportastothe nature ofinjuriessufferedbythe victimare theguidingfactors. Nodoubt, the Courtisalsotoconsider whetherthepossibilityofconvictionisremote andbleakandmayalsolookintoif thesettlementislikelytoresultinharmonybetweenthepartiestoimprove their future relationship. The stage of quashingalsoremainsrelevant.Reliance inthisregardmaybe placeduponKapilGuptav.
State (NCTof Delhi) andAnother, (2022) 15SCC44whereintheprinciplesquotedinNarinderSingh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6SCC466were referred for quashingof proceedingsunder Section376 IPC.
7.Itmayalsobe noticedthatapparentconflictinobservationsinNarinderSinghv. StateofPunjab, (2014)6SCC466andState ofRajasthan v. Shambhu KewatandAnother, (2014) 4SCC149wasconsideredbythe Hon”bleApexCourtinThe Stateof MadhyaPradeshv.
LaxmiNarayan andOthers,Crl.A.349/2019, decidedon05.03.2019andprinciples for quashing stand reiterated in para 13 as under :
�13. Considering the lawon the point and the other decisions of thisCourton the point, referred to hereinabove,itis observedand heldas
under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedingsfor the non-compoundableoffences under
Section 320 of the Codecan beexercised havingoverwhelminglyand
predominantlythe civil character, particularlythose arising out ofcommercialtransactions or arising out of matrimonialrelationship orfamilydisputes and when the parties haveresolved the entiredispute
amongst themselves;
ii)suchpower is not to beexercised in thoseprosecutions which
involved heinousand seriousoffences of mentaldepravity or offences
CRL.M.C. 2833/2024Page3of 5
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under
the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to
be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and
the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in
the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual
alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact
on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section
482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their
entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would
not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would
be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing
the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open
to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature
of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is
still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read
as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
likemurder, rape,dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in natureand have a serious impact on society;
iii)similarly, such poweris not to beexercisedfor the offences underthe specialstatutes likePrevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed bypublicservants whileworking in that capacityare not to
bequashed merely on thebasis of compromise between the victim and
the offender;
iv)offences under Section 307 IPCand the Arms Act etc. would fall inthe categoryof heinousand seriousoffences andtherefore are to betreated as crime against the society and not against the individualalone, and therefore,thecriminal proceedingsfor the offenceunderSection 307 IPCand/or the Arms Act etc.which havea seriousimpacton the society cannot bequashed in exercise of powers under Section482 of the Code, on theground thatthe partieshaveresolved theirentiredispute amongst themselves.However, theHigh Courtwouldnot rest its decision merely because thereis a mention of Section 307IPCin the FIRor the charge is framed under this provision. It would
beopen to the High Court to examineas to whether incorporation ofSection 307 IPCis therefor the sakeof itor the prosecution hascollected sufficient evidence, which ifproved, would lead to framingthe chargeunder Section307 IPC. Forthis purpose, itwould beopen
to the High Courtto gobythe natureof injurysustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegatepartsof the body, natureof weapons used etc. However, such an exercisebythe High Courtwould bepermissibleonly after the evidenceis collected afterinvestigation and the chargesheet is filed/chargeis framed and/orduring the trial. Such exercise is not permissiblewhen the matteris
stillunder investigation. Therefore, the ultimateconclusion in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision ofthisCourtinthe case ofNarinder Singh (supra)should beread harmoniouslyand to bereadas a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v)whileexercising the power under Section 482 of the Codeto quashthe criminal proceedingsin respect of non-compoundable offences,
which are private in natureand do not havea seriousimpact on
society, on the ground that thereis a settlement/compromise betweenthe victim and theoffender, the High Courtis required to consider theantecedentsof the accused;theconduct of theaccused,namely,
CRL.M.C. 2833/2024Page4of 5
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise
etc.�
whether the accused was absconding and whyhewas absconding,
how hehad managed with the complainantto enter into a compromise
etc.�
8.Returningbacktothe factsofthepresentcase, itmaybe noticedthatpetitionersalongwithotherco-accusedreached the house of complainant/
respondentNo. 2armedwithillegalweapon, whichwasusedbyco-accusedImran@ Golufor firingtworoundsandsame resultedinbulletinjuriesinthe rightlegof thecomplainant. Merelybecause respondentNo.2 andpetitionershave arrivedata compromise, maynotbe a sufficientgroundforquashing the proceedings.
Itneedstobe keptinperspective thatcriminallawisdesignedforachievingsocialcontrolandregulate the conductof the individualswithinthesociety. The objectalsoremainsthatseriousoffencesshouldnotbe
repeatedbythe offendersandthe settlementdoesnotfurther encourage the
criminal acts or endangersthe welfare of the society at large.
Inthe factsandcircumstances, consideringthe nature andgravityofoffence, thisisnota fitcase toinvoke powersunder Section482Cr.P.C. forquashingof proceedings, whichmaybe usedfor servingthe endsof justiceor prevent the abuse of process of Court.
Petitionisaccordinglydismissed.Pendingapplications,ifany, alsostand disposedof.
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 10, 2024/akc
CRL.M.C. 2833/2024Page5of 5
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA