Himanshu Singla & ORS v. State (NCT) Of Delhi & ANR
$~42 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2690/2017 HIMANSHU SINGLA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, Ms.Sneh Lata Rana and Mr.Bipluv Mukherjee, Advs.
versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R
% 09.11.2017 The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.347/2017 dated 14.07.2017 (P.S.Burari) instituted for the offences under Sections 324/506 and 34 of the IPC. Subsequently Section 307 was also added. It has been alleged that there was some scuffle between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant. Later, on the same day, over a cigarette, one of the petitioners is said to have stabbed the respondent No.2/complainant in his back resulting in injuries to him. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner was injured in the back side of the spine. The injuries were found to be stitched. In the beginning, the respondent No.2/complainant was to be given non operative treatment. However, because of the lung collapse due to collection of blood, the complainant/respondent No.2 had to be aspirated and had to be subjected to Thoracotomy and Decortication. After the
recovery, ICD was removed. There was no difficulty in the victim recovering from his injuries.
During the course of investigation, because of the fact that the petitioners are local persons and are known to respondent No.2, a settlement was arrived at. The petitioners have paid for the medical expenses of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has also taken a conscious decision of not prosecuting the petitioners any further. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when the respondent No.2 was initially given preliminary treatment, it was not known as to who had inflicted the stab injuries on him. The report of the hospital only indicated that the complainant/respondent No.2 was assaulted by some known person near Nathupura.
Taking into account the fact that the respondent No.2 has fully recovered and is not desirous of prosecuting the petitioners, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution of the petitioners any further.
While saying so, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners are associated with the complainant/respondent No.2 and have also paid for the medical expenses borne by the complainant/respondent No.2.
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) SCC 675;
Nikhil
Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] For the reasons afore recorded, the FIR No.347/2017 dated 14.07.2017 (P.S.Burari) instituted for the offences under Sections 324/506 and 34 of the IPC and all the emanating proceedings therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 09, 2017 k