NARENDER VATS & ORS. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2556/2021
NARENDER VATS & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aabhas Dahiya and Ms. Shivangi Shokeen, Advocates with Petitioners in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI Jasbir Malik, PS: Kapashera.
Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Advocate for R-2 to R-4 with R-2 to R-4-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 petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0148/2017, under Sections 323/341/379/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kapashera and proceedings emanating therefrom. Section 392 IPC has also been reflected in status report.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered at instance of Umed Singh (respondent No. 2), who alleged that on 24.04.2017, while he was heading towards RML Hospital along with his wife Mamta Devi (respondent No. 3) and his brothers wife Nagina Devi (respondent No. 4) in Eeco Car bearing No. DL-9C-AM-6430, they were intercepted by a person on Scooty bearing No. DL-3S-1291.
The said person alleged that car had touched his Scooty and started assaulting respondent No. 2. Further, he was joined in assault by 2/3 persons, in Swift Dzire Car bearing No. HR-30-H-7793. Complainant further alleged that the car driver of Swift Dzire Car snatched gold chain during the incident.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties in terms of settlement dated 13.04.2021 and incident relates to a mere scuffle, over touching of Scooty by the car driven by respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that petitioners have clean past antecedents and Chetram Vats (petitioner No. 3), aged about 70 years is a retired Government Servant.
4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are present in person, submit that all the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and they have no further grievance in this regard, as the incident primarily relates to road rage and have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
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. 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 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.
8. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in person and have been identified by SI Jasbir Malik, P.S.: Kapashera, Delhi. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion.
9. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 intend to put quietus to the proceedings, which happened over a minor incident of touching of car driven by respondent no. 2 with Scooty. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties. The chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Also, no other involvement of the petitioners in any other criminal case 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. 0148/2017, under Sections 323/341/379/506/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: Kapashera, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioners, they are directed to plant 50 saplings of trees, which are upto 03 feet in height in the local parks in the residential area within jurisdiction of P.S.: Samalkha, Delhi 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.: Kapashera. 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. 25,000/- with the Delhi 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.
APRIL 29, 2024/R
CRL.M.C. 2556/2021 Page 4 of 4