Delhi High Court – Orders
Shahrukh & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 17/2025
SHAHRUKH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pavitra Veer Singh, Ms. Shinu
Gupta and Mr. Furkan, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritesh Bahri, APP.
ASI Naushad Haider, PS: Bhajanpura.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.01.2025
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
0133/2021 dated 20th March, 2021 registered at Police Station New
Usmanpur for offences under Sections 308/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860,1 along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
The request is made in light of settlement agreement dated 12 th December,
2024 executed between the Petitioners and the Complainant/ Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. A copy of the aforementioned MoU has been duly placed on
record.
2. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case under Sections
308/341/506/34 of the IPC.
3. It is averred that the parties are both neighbours and relatives. On 20 th
March 2021, the Petitioners purportedly attacked Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
1
“IPC”
CRL.M.C. 17/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2025 at 21:30:02
with an iron rod, leading to injuries sustained by Respondent No. 2, who
was administered twelve stitches for his medical treatment. Following this
incident, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the Petitioners.
4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, with the assistance of well-wishers.
Furthermore, the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated
12th December, 2024, out of their own free will, without any form of duress,
coercion, threat, or misrepresentation.
5. The parties are present before this Court and have been duly identified
by the Investigating Officer. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 confirm that they
have no further grievance against the Petitioners and raise no objection to
the quashing of the proceedings arising from the present FIR against the
petitioners.
6. It must be noted that while the offence under Section 308 is non-
compoundable, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising its powers
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
[erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can
compound offences which are non-compoundable on the ground that there is
a compromise between the accused and the complainant.
7. In this regard, the Supreme Court has laid down certain parameters
and guidelines for the High Courts while accepting settlement and quashing
the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Anr.,3 the Supreme Court made the following observations:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in2
“BNSS”
3
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
CRL.M.C. 17/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2025 at 21:30:02
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.”
8. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Anr.,4 the Supreme Court observed as under:
“16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is
not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice
would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim
4
(2017) 9 SCC 641.
CRL.M.C. 17/2025 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2025 at 21:30:02
have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.”
9. While it is undisputed that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC is
not in personam, however, in light of the fact that the parties have amicably
resolved their dispute, it would serve no purpose to continue with the
proceedings stemming from the present FIR, and would only amount to an
abuse of the judicial process and impose an unwarranted burden on the State
Exchequer. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
10. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been
put to motion, the ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to
cost.
11. In view of the above, FIR No. 0133/2021 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of a cost of
INR 2,500/- by each of the Petitioners, which shall be deposited with the
Delhi Police Welfare Fund, within a period of six weeks from today. The
proof of payment of cost be submitted with the concerned SHO.
12. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. Pending
application(s), if any, are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 7, 2025
d.negi
CRL.M.C. 17/2025 Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/01/2025 at 21:30:03
[ad_1]
Source link