Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Naveen Saini & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 5864 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Quashing of FIR - Private Dispute - Section 323/324/34 IPC - [Section 323, Section 324, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles for exercising power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties. The court emphasized that such power should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and highlighted the types of cases where quashing may be appropriate or inappropriate.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was registered due to a quarrel between the parties, resulting in injuries and loss of property. The parties later reached a settlement agreement, and the complainants voluntarily entered into the settlement without coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement. Considering the predominantly private nature of the dispute and the settlement reached, the court decided to quash the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the FIR and proceedings based on the settlement reached by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles for exercising power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties. The court highlighted the types of cases where quashing may be appropriate or inappropriate, and the factors to be considered in such cases.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, based on the settlement reached by the parties.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, a complaint was registered on the complaint of Respondent No.2 namely Shishpal alleging therein that on 12/01/2018 due to some minor misunderstanding, a quarrel took place between the son of the complainant and the sons of Rakesh namely Bablu and Naveen. After complainant came to know about this quarrel and went to the house of Rakesh and explained everything. Thereafter, Rakesh had assured the complainantthat he will pacify the matter. On 17/1/2018 about 8.00 P.M., Naresh along with the complainant's son were returning from Sai Mandir, Tikri Kalan. Naresh left the son of the complainant in front of Bhagat Singh Park. While going home, the sonsof Rakesh i.e. Bablu and Naveen reached the spot and started beating the complainant's son. When the wife and brother of the complainant got to know about this they reached the spot, but the above-said persons began quarreling and beating them too.The wife of the complainant received injuries on her left hand and in the quarrel the wife of the complainant hadlost her gold chain and earrings. His brother had also received injuries and his ring was also stolen by the accused persons. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered. The chargesheet, in this case, has already been filed and the matter is pending before the Learned Trial Court,Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both parties have amicably resolved all their disputes with the help and intervention of well-wishers and common friends. The parties have reached a memorandum of understanding dated 28.10.2022 on the following terms and conditions:
"1. That the compromise deed came between the parties with some respectable people and elders of the society.
2. That the second party had already paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first parties in the presence of the elders of the society and family members.
3. That the first party has undertakes to that they not file the case/complaint/suit against the second party in future.
4. That both the parties have compromised with each other without any pressure, coercion and on their own free will.
5. That the first parties undertake to give their statement in the concerned Court/Hon'ble High Court at the time of quashing of above said FIR bearing no. 27/2018, U/s 323/324/34 IPC P.S. Mundka, Delhi.
6. That after compromise both the parties shall not interfere in the life of each other in future and no party shall file any complaint and case etc. against each other before any competent court of law and any other authority in respect of the any issue."
Petitioners Naveen Saini and Bablu Saini are present in Court in person. The complainants are also present in person. All the parties have duly been identified by I.O.Further. Complainants submit that they have entered the settlement voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion, and in view of the settlement agreement, theyhave no objection if the case FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPCand all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
4. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that as per the Investigating Officer, there is no other dispute between the parties.
5. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC, has recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and inter-alia held as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 o
The court has the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when a settlement between parties would lead to better relations and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a crim....
In personal disputes, if matters are settled amicably, a quietus should be put, and the court may quash ongoing criminal proceedings based on such settlements.
The court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C if an amicable settlement is reached and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that if the dispute is private in nature and the parties have entered into a settlement, and there is a remote or bleak chance of conviction, i....
The court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence, the gravity of the case, and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties.
The court can quash an FIR based on the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties, especially when the dispute is of a private nature and the parties do not wish to pursue the complaint fur....
The High Court may exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private, predominantly civil in nature, and parties have reached a volu....
The central legal point established is that criminal proceedings can be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote due to a compromise between the offender and the victim, causing extreme inj....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
