IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations, such as those involving extortion and physical assault, cannot be quashed based on a settlement agreement at the initial stage of investigation.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 384/2021 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/384/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant Daulatram who had alleged that accused persons Laxmi Narayan, Chakresh, Gaurav Aggarwal, and present accused/applicant Vishesh, with his 5-6 unknown associates had physically assaulted the employee of the complainant, namely Sukhwinder on 19.10.2020, with the motive of extorting a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant. It was further alleged that the accused persons had extended further threats to extort an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs from the complainant. It was alleged that the accused persons had been extending life threats and threats to falsely implicate the complainant and his family members in false cases. It was alleged by the complainant that he was the owner of the property bearing No. 7803 to 7812 to 7842 to 7849, Rattan Lal Building, Ram Nagar, Arakashan Road, Paharganj, Delhi and he had numerous occupiers/tenants, including the present accused/applicant. It was further stated, that the said building had been declared dangerous and in a dilapidated state by North Delhi Municipal Corporation, due to which the complainant had issued notices of eviction to each and every occupier of the building, including the present accused/applicant. Legal proceedings for eviction against Laxmi Narayan were pending in the District Courts of Delhi at Tis Hazari Courts, and in the meanwhile complainant had opted to settle the matter with the present accused/applicant Laxmi Narayan, vide settlement agreement dated 03.10.2019, whereby a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid to him. However, instead of honoring his commitment by vacating the premises after taking money, present accused/applicant had started extending threats to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had lodged a complaint dated 17.09.2020 vide DD No. 40-A at P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 19.10.2020, the accused persons had physically assaulted the complainant and his employee Sukhwinder Singh. It has been alleged that accused persons Chakresh and Gaurav Aggarwal, were armed with sharp-edged weapons, and present applicant/accused Laxmi Narayan and his son Vishesh had rods in their hands and they had committed the offence with the same. The complainant had made a PCR call on 19.10.2020 at around 9:08 pm, and the entire incident was narrated to the police officials; however, no legal action was taken by the police. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant on 01.11.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a compromise has been entered into between the parties at the very initial stage of 'the investigation i.e., before filing of the charge sheet and the complainant is not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused persons. It is argued that the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have entered into a compromise and sorted all their disputes in a cordial manner in order to maintain peace and harmony in the society. It is stated that no useful purpose would be served in case the FIR is kept pending and it will amount to abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the same would result in the wastage of the precious time of the judiciary.

4. Learned APP for the State argues that the allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature. It is argued that in the present case the accused/applicant had physically assaulted the complainant and had extorted money from him by threatening him and his family. It is stated that the present case is of such nature which at this stage when the investi