Back
2008 (2) Crimes 175 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reva Khetrapal, J.
Karan Gandhi —Petitioner
versus
State of N.C.T. Delhi and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Petition (Criminal) No. 250 of 2007
Decided on 7.11.2007
For the Petitioner:K.K. Manan, Rishikesh Chaudhary and Anwesh Madhukar. Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel and Investigating Officer S.I. Sunil Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings of F.I.R or complaint, and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 307, 309/34—Petition to quash FIR for offences—Respondent No. 2, a married woman fell in love with petitioner, a young boy—Parents of boy came to known about their relationship and warned both of them—Petitioner and respondent No. 2 decided to end their life and petitioner brought a pistol—Respondent shot on her forehead and petitioner shot in his head—Both however survived—Quashing of FIR prayed on ground that matter had been compromised—Whether case was fit for exercise of inherent powers? Yes.
Held: Whether the present case is a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers remains to be considered. It is a classic case of love affair having gone away. A young man at the threshold of his life having fallen for a married woman, and his family having made it clear in no uncertain terms that if they persisted their relationship would be exposed to the world and, in particular to the spouse of the lady, it was decided between them to end their existence rather than to end their relationship. As fate would have it, they were destined to live and justify their action, which, it cannot be denied was a clear deviation from the societal norms. They have thus lived to regret the day and to face the consequences of their mutual decision of putting an end to their lives.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the injuries sustained by the respondent No.2 do not come within the ambit of Section 307, I.P.C. and, in fact, the same come within the purview of Section 323 of the Penal Code. This is disputed by the counsel for the State, who submits that the injuries sustained by Smt. Preeti were grievous in nature. Be that as it may, this is a sordid story, the spill over of which is likely to affect many other lives including the lives, of husband of the respondent No. 2 and her minor son, apart form the family of the petitioner.
It is, accordingly, not difficult for this Court to come to the conclusion that this is a proper case for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the first information report and all proceedings connected therewith, more so as the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are in a sense both victims who are willing to forgive and more than willing to forget this interlude in their lives. Continuing the proceedings can only result in proclamation of their misery and, in any event, no useful purpose is likely to be served. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 518/2006, under Sections 307/309/34, I.P.C., registered at police station. Dwarka and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. (Paras 8 to10)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Reva Khetrapal, J.—Preeti Goyal, a married woman with a 12 years old son, Gautam went to purchase a bicycle for her son from the shop of the petitioner, Karan Gandhi at Tilak Nagar. This casual meeting resulting in a friendship between the two and frequent meetings ensued, which abruptly came to an end on 10th June, 2006 at around 5 p.m., when Preeti and Karan were discovered together by Karan’s father, mother and uncle. The outcome of the said chance encounter was that both were beaten up and abused in filthy language by Karan’s relatives. Preeti Goyal was pressurized into writing a note in her hand, with her address and phone number, that she was a married woman and she would not meet Karan in future. After a subsequent discussion on the telephone on 11th June, 2006 both decided to meet at Rajouri Garden, from where they took an auto for a park in Dwarka. In the park having come to the conclusion that they did not have a future together, they formed a part for dying together. Karan produced a gun which he had brought with him and Preeti shot herself with the gun on her forehead and handed over the gun to Karan. The latter then shot himself on the head and thereafter shot Preeti on her head. Three pellets were recovered, one from the head of the petitioner Karan Gandhi and two from the head of Preeti Goyal. Preeti was rendered unconscious and when she came to her senses, she found herself in a nursing home. On her statement made to Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar, First Information Report No. 518/2006 was registered against the petitioner and her under Sections 307/309/34, I.P.C. at police Station Dwarka.
2. As fate would have it, the petitioner Karan Gandhi and Preeti Goyal (the latter is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the present petition) are both alive and have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the above-mentioned first information report. It is averred that both have compromised the matter. Even at the time of grant of bail to the present petitioner, an affidavit was filed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge to state that the parties had compromised the matter, which was got verified by the learned Trial Judge through the Investigating Officer of the case. On the basis of the said affidavit, bail was granted to the petitioner on 5th July, 2006.
3. In this Court also, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit praying for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the first information report registered against the petitioner, wherein it is affirmed that she had filed a similar affidavit at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Notice of the petitioner was issued to the respondent No. l/State, Counsel for the State has affirmed the factual position as set out above, including the fact that the respondent No. 2, Preeti Goyal does not want to prosecute the matter.
5. It is, however, pointed out by Counsel for the state that the offences are non-compoundable in nature. Indubitably, this is so, but it cannot be lost sight of that in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, all Criminal Courts possess wide inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding to enable them to render real and substantial justice. The caveat is that the said inherent jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts has to be necessarily exercised with caution.
6. In Daulat Zia v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and others1 a Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh2; and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan3, granted permission for the quashing of the first information report under Section 307 of the Penal Code on the ground that the parties who were Afghan nationals had settled their differences and wanted to live in peace, without any ill-will or bad blood.
7. The question whether mere amicable settlement w
