KULDEEP vs STATE NCT OF DEHI AND ANR.
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.05.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 3685/2024, CRL.M.A. 14124/2024
KULDEEP ….. Petitioner
Through: Counsel with Petitioner-in-person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Dharmendra, PS: Kishangarh.
Mr. Narendra Gautam, Ms. Machandu Pulu and Mr. Banarsi Lal, Advocates 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)
CRL.M.A. 14125/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3685/2024, CRL.M.A. 14124/2024
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. 0171/2019, under Sections 323/341 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kishan Garh and proceedings emanating therefrom. Charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 308/341 IPC.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 appear on advance notice and accept notice
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, present FIR was registered on 16.05.2019 on complaint of respondent No. 2, who alleged that on 13.05.2019, in front of H.No. 339 ABC Block, Munirka petitioner hit respondent No. 2 (Gourav Kumar) with a rod, which resulted in grievous injures to respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are close friends and were planning to visit Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, prior to the incident which occurred on a minor issue. He further submits that petitioner has clean past antecedents and complainant was discharged from the Hospital on the same day. Further disputes have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Settlement Deed dated 07.10.2022.
5. 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.
6. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 of 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 generalised 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 quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, minor incidents or offences, which dont affect the society at large or are personal in nature, 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. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by SI Dharmendra, PS: Kishangarh. 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 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Petitioner and respondent No.2 being close friends 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.
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. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0171/2019, under Sections 323/341/308 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kishan Garh and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioner, is directed to plant 25 saplings of trees, which are upto 03 feet in height in the local parks in the area of P.S.: Kishangarh 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.: Kishangarh. 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, petitioner shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- 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 learned trial court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 16, 2024/R
CRL.M.C. 3685/2024 Page 4 of 4