Neeraj Sood & Ors v. State of Delhi & Anr

SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 08, 2015 jg

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 8th December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 4987/2015 NEERAJ SOOD & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Raj Kumar Chandiwal, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Pratap Singh, PS-Uttam Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT Crl. M.A. 17923/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. + CRL.M.C. 4987/2015 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 204/2012 registered at PS-Uttam Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 308/342/34 IPC against them. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.3 namely Om Prakash Kukreja due to quarrel took place between the parties in which respondent no. 3 along with respondent nos. 2 and 4 received injuries. Thereafter both the parties approached Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby all the matters registered inter se between the parties have been settled vide settlement dated 06.04.2015 and as per the settlement, respondent no.2 received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of demand draft being no. 500588 dated 28.10.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, Defence Colony, which she has accepted without any protest. Thus, the respondents do not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners. 3. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are personally present in the Court. They have been duly identified by SI Pratap Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. The aforesaid respondents do not dispute whatever stated by the counsel for the petitioners and submit that they have resolved their disputes with the petitioners vide settlement 06.04.2015 and respondent no. 2 received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the settlement. Thus, they do not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners and if the present petition is allowed, they have no objection. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, however, the charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that since the parties have settled their disputes in HMA petition being no. 860/2014, Maintenance Petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., FIR no. 258/2010, registered at PS-Hari Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and FIR No. 337/2012, registered at PS-Uttam Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections452/323/380/34 IPC, the State has no objection, if the quietus is given to the present petition. 5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under: "58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated