The court can quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice, especially in cases with an overwhelming civil dispute element.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR. NO. 773/2016 U/S 323/308/506/34 IPC OF P.S. SHAHBAD DAIRY, DELHI, against Petitioners No.1,2 & 3, in the interest of justice, peace and harmony between the parties."

2. In substance the case of the petitioners is for quashing of the FIR No.773/2016 under Section 323/308/506/34 IPC of P.S. SHAHBAD DAIRY, DELHI.

3. The petition includes a memo of parties where the complainants, at whose behest the FIR has been registered have been made respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is the case of the petitioners and so contended by their counsel that the petitioners herein as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are neighbours. The subject matter of the FIR is about an incident that happened on October 25, 2016 at 1.00 am when, in the neighbourhood the shouting of a shopkeeper was heard, which made the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to step out to see some boys are beating the shopkeeper named Pawan. When respondent Nos. 2 to 4 intervened, the petitioners, who were beating the shopkeeper, left him and started beating the respondent Nos.2 to 4 with dandas. One of the petitioners hit danda on the head of Nitin Dabas the respondent No.4 due to which he became unconscious. In fact, it is alleged that the petitioners threatened to kill them. The petitioners fled away leaving Nitin Dabas on the spot. Thereafter, the police had come who took the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the MB Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that immediately after the incident, an oral settlement had taken place between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the petitioners continued to be under the impression that in view of the settlement entered between them and respondent Nos.2 to 4, nothing survives in the FIR and the same shall not be pursued against them.

4. Since, it transpired the FIR has not been quashed, the petitioners and the respondents had on August 8, 2020, formally executed a written settlement and compromised all the disputes arising out the abovesaid FIR.

5. He stated that the petitioners have a clean record and never been involved in any criminal case. The Registration of FIR is causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the contents of the FIR and written settlement entered between the parties at pages 43 to 45 of the paper-book. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that FIR need to be quashed.

I. Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors., (2017) AIR SC 4843 (MANU/SC/1241/2017)

II. Jatinder Khurana & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Crl. M.A 31440/2019 & 31388/2019 decided on 19.07.2019)

III. Dhiraj Verma & Ors. vs. State & Ors.,MANU/DE/0649/2019

IV. Manoj kumar & Ors. vs. State & Ors.,MANU/DE/0531/2019

6. On the other hand Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, learned ASC for State, would contend that the case was registered on the statement of Amit Sindhu the respondent No.2 herein who is a resident of village Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi-110042 wherein he has alleged that on October 25, 2016 he was present at Upwan Apartment with his friends the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 when they heard one shopkeeper namely pawan was shouting whereupon they promptly reached the spot and found that some boys were beating Pawan. They intervened into the matter to rescue him and asked the boys as to why they were beating him. Thereafter the boys started beating them with 'dandas'. One of them Nitin Dabas the respondent No.4, was hit on the head with 'danda' with the result he became unconscious. Thereafter the petitioners ran away and police arrived at the spot and they were shifted to the MB hospital.

7. During the course of investigation, statements were recorded, wherein Pawan has stated that petitioner No.1