The seriousness of the offence and the availability of evidence are crucial factors in determining the appropriateness of quashing an FIR based on a settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') seeks quashing of FIR bearing number 277/2022 dated 01.04.2022, registered at PS Madhu Vihar, for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), and all other proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has already been settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and an affidavit with regard to the same is annexed with the petition. Therefore, it is prayed that in view of the settlement, the present FIR number 277/2022 dated 01.04.2022, registered at PS Madhu Vihar, for offence under Section 307 of the IPC be quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

a. Mahendra Singh @ Sunny &Anr. V. State & Ors., (Crl. M.C. 852/2021 & 4232/2021)

b. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466

3. It is submitted that the injured/respondent no. 3 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no material on record, except the disclosure statement, with regard to the motive of the crime. It is urged that since the petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time of the alleged incident, therefore, it is not premeditated, and thus it cannot be stated to be an assault with the intention to kill respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.04.2022.

4. The learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the quashing of the present FIR on the ground that the injury inflicted, as per the MLC, was grievous in nature. It is further contended that the act of present petitioner covering his face with his shirt in order to hide his identity from the CCTV camera, before hitting respondent no. 3, clearly indicates his intention to commit the crime. It is further submitted that the crime committed is brutal in nature.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, facts as recorded in the status report, are reproduced herein:

i. On 01.04.2022, Suraj Singh (respondent no. 2), made a PCR Call to PS Madhu Vihar, reporting robbery and quarrelling at RG Square Mall, near Max Hospital, IP Extension, Delhi. Upon reaching the spot, it was found that the injured had already been rushed to LBS Hospital, Khirchirpur, Delhi.

ii. As per the chargesheet, on reaching the hospital, it was allegedly informed by the concerned doctor that the injured had a lacerated wound above left eyebrow of size 2 x 0.5 cm and a lacerated wound on left parietal area, however, there was no active bleeding. It is further alleged that the injured was unfit for giving statement and was referred to GTB Hospital for further treatment. Due to the injured being unconscious, his statement could not be recorded at GTB Hospital either.

iii. During enquiry, one Suraj, who was present in the hospital and is alleged to be the PCR caller, stated that he had received a call from his friend, namely Bunty, from Uttar Pradesh, who is alleged to be the brother of injured, informing him that Manoj, the present petitioner, has told him that Khushi Ram, the injured, had a quarrel with few strangers. Allegedly, he further informed that Manoj was already present at the spot and Khushi Ram was found in injured condition. Thereafter, he made the PCR call and both of them, Manoj and Suraj, rushed the injured to LBS Hospital, Khirchirpur.

iv. During investigation, CCTV footage of the area was scrutinized by the police along with Suraj, wherein it was found that Manoj, the present petitioner, reached the spot around 03:50 AM, holding a stick (danda), thereafter, he identified Khushi Ram with the help of his phone's flashlight. After roaming