Rashid @ Mohd Rashid Qureshi And ORS v. State Of NCT & ANR

$~9 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1471/2020 RASHID @ MOHD RASHID QURESHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Shailendra Singh, Mr.

Ishaan Jain and Mr. Harsh Choudhary, Advs.

All the petitioners in person.

versus STATE OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Rupali Bandopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr.

Abhijeet Kumar, Adv.

wirh SI Manish Tyagi, PS Jamia Nagar.

Mr. Abhishek Malhotra and Mr. Falak Mohd, Advs. for complainant and all victims.

All the respondents in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 14.02.2024 1.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') for quashing of FIR No. 219/2020 dated 08.08.2020, for offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, including all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The said FIR was lodged at the instance of Respondent No.2. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Chargesheet has been filed in the present case. 2.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that due to some misunderstanding and miscommunication, a scuffle took place between the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are neighbours, during a celebratory gathering. He submits that crackers were burnt, which was misunderstood by the complainant as firing from a revolver. He submits that no revolver has been recovered and no injuries were suffered by the complainants.

3.

This led to the lodging of the present FIR and another cross-FIR, that is FIR No. 225/2020 dated 10.08.2020, for offences under Sections 326/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar.

4.

He submits that the State has already filed a closure report in FIR No. 225/2020.

5.

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have amicably settled their dispute by way of Compromise Deed dated 16.08.2020, with the intervention of respectable members of the society, wellwishers and family, on their own free will, without any undue influence, coercion or pressure.

6.

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

7.

The parties state that they want to live their lives peacefully and happily as neighbours. The petitioners undertake to not indulge into any such activity, as alleged, in the future. 8.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, on being asked, state that the complaint was given on a misunderstanding and no incident of firing from arms had taken place. They submit that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

have no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 9.

Offences under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 are non-compoundable.

10.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

(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.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.

For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.

It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

(emphasis supplied) 11.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) 12.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute, the fact that no arms were recovered from the petitioners in relation to the alleged incident and no injuries were caused during the alleged incident either, and that the parties had amicably entered into a settlement merely eight days after the incident, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

13.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed in case arising from FIR No. 219/2020, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost. 14.

In view of the above, FIR No. 219/2020 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of the cost of ₹75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Thousand Only) by each petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund, the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and the Bar Council Fund (Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Welfare Fund) respectively (that is, ₹25,000/- to each fund by every petitioner separately), within a period of four weeks from date.

15.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 14, 2024 'KDK'

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.