UBESH RAZA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
$~63
$~63
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI%Date of Decision:30.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 3360/2024UBESH RAZA….. PetitionerThrough:Ms. HimanshuVijandMr. SushilKumar, Advs.
versusSTATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR…… Respondents
Through:Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State withSI Vivek, PS Mayur Vihar.
Ms. SumatiSharma, Adv. for R-2
with R-2inperson.
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 petitioner for quashingofFIR
No. 0088/2020under Sections354(D)/506IPC registeredatP.S.: MayurVihar.
2.Issue notice. LearnedAPP for the State andlearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2alongwithrespondentNo.2 inpersonappear onadvancenotice and acceptnotice.
3.Inbrief, asper the case of theprosecution, presentFIR wasregisteredonthe complaintof respondentNo.2on07.03.2020, whoallegedthatshe
wasin friendshipwiththe petitioner, but lateronwhenshe wanted toendthesame, petitionerstartedthreateningtoexpose herphotographsonsocialmedia. Further,petitionerfollowedthe complainanton28.02.2020tillher
home andcreated a scene.
4.Learnedcounselfor the petitionersubmitsthatbothpetitioner aswell
CRL.M.C. 3360/2024Page 1of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
as respondent No. 2 were closely known to each other and the FIR is
outcome of misunderstandings which have now been cleared between the
parties. He further submits that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have
resolved the disputes in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated
10.04.2024. He further points out that petitioner has clean past antecedents
and was aged about 24 years at the relevant time.
asrespondentNo. 2were closelyknowntoeachotherandthe FIRis
outcome of misunderstandingswhichhavenowbeenclearedbetweentheparties. He further submitsthatpetitioner andrespondentNo. 2haveresolvedthe disputesintermsofMemorandumof Understandingdated10.04.2024. He further pointsoutthatpetitioner hascleanpastantecedentsand was aged about24 years at the relevant time.
5.RespondentNo. 2whois presentinperson, submitsthatallthedisputesbetweenthe partieshavebeenamicablysettledandshehasno
objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6.LearnedAPP for the State submitsthatinviewof amicable settlementbetweentheparties, the State hasnoobjectionincase the FIRinquestionisquashed.
7.Petitionerinthe presentcase seekstoinvoke the powersunder Section482of Code of CriminalProcedure. The same istobe usedtosecure theendsof justiceor topreventtheabuse of processof Court. Inwhichcases,
the power toquashthe criminalproceedingsor the complaintor FIR maybe
usedwhenthe offender aswellasvictimhave settledtheirdispute, woulddependuponthe factsandcircumstancesof eachcase andnogeneralisedlistor categoriescanbe prescribed. However,the Courtisrequiredtogive dueregardtothe nature and gravityof the offence andconsider the impactonthesociety.
8.Itmayalsobe observedthatheinousandseriousoffencesinvolvingmentaldepravityor offencessuchasmurder, rape anddacoitycannotbeappropriatelyquasheddespite settlement. However, distinguishedfromseriousoffences,theoffenceswhichhave predominantelementof civildispute or offencesinvolvingminor incidentsover personaldisputes, which
CRL.M.C. 3360/2024Page 2of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
do not affect public at large, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. It also needs to 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 to the accused.
do not affectpublicatlarge, standona different footing, sofar asexercise of
inherentpowersunder Section482Cr.P.C.isconcerned. Italsoneedstobe
assessed, if inviewof compromise betweenthe parties, the possibilityof
convictioninsucha case isremote andwhether continuationof proceedingswould cause grave oppression andprejudice to the accused.
9.Petitioner aswellasrespondentNo.2arepresentinpersonandhavebeenidentifiedbySIVivek, P.S.:Mayur Vihar.I have interactedwiththe
partiesandtheyconfirmthatthe matter hasbeenamicablysettledbetweenthemwithoutanythreat, pressure or coercion. RespondentNo.2alsostatesthatnothingremainstobe further adjudicateduponbetweenthe partiesandshe hasno objection in case the FIR inquestionisquashed.
10.Partiesbeingknowntoeachotherintendtoputquietustothe
proceedingsandmove forwardin life.Thechancesofconvictionare bleakinviewof settlementbetweenthe parties.Nopastinvolvementof the petitionerhavebeenbroughttonotice of thisCourt. The settlementshallfurtherpromote harmony between the parties.
Consideringthe factsandcircumstances,since the matter hasbeenamicablysettledbetweenthe parties, nousefulpurpose shallbeservedbykeepingthe case pending. Continuationofproceedingswouldbe nothingbutanabuseof the processofCourt. Consequently, FIR No. 0088/2020underSections354(D)/506IPC registeredatP.S. Mayur Viharandtheproceedingsemanating therefromstand quashed.
Petitionisaccordinglydisposedof.Pendingapplications, if any, alsostand disposedof.
ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 30, 2024/akc
CRL.M.C. 3360/2024Page 3of 3
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA