Mukesh Kumar Arora v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~39 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1761/2017 MUKESH KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vikas Walia with Mr. Divyanshu Srivastav, Advs.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State SI Abhijit Kumar, P.S. Civil Lines Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv. for R-2 to R-5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 31.05.2017 CRL. M.A.9700/2017 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1761/2017 The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.286/2016 dated 30.10.2016 (P.S. Civil Lines) instituted for offences under Sections 297/337 of the IPC.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that damage was caused to the vehicle of the respondent No.4 and injuries were caused to some of the respondents not because of any drunken driving by him but because of his having lost control over the vehicle. It has further been submitted that though the investigation in this case has been proceeding, but,

realising that some losses have been caused to the respondents, the petitioner, in his own way, has tried to recompense the respondents. Taking into account the aforesaid fact viz. the respondents agreeing for not prosecuting the petitioners any further, the nature of the accusation in the FIR and the settlement between the petitioner and the respondents, this court has been persuaded to quash the subject FIR. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of any criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):

"58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. 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. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.

Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] For the aforesaid facts, the FIR No. 286/2016 dated 30.10.2016 (P.S. Civil Lines) and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.