IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Vipin & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.M.C. 5768 of 2023
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Robbery - Quashing of FIR - IPC 1860 Sections 392/394/397/411/34, Arms Act 1959 Sections 25/54/59
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed seeking quashing of e-FIR for offences under IPC and Arms Act. The complainant alleged robbery by the accused persons and later settled with them, seeking quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the allegations to be serious and heinous in nature, and held that the offence of robbery was committed by the accused persons. The Court rejected the petition for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR could be quashed based on the settlement between the parties and the willingness of the accused to compensate the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra to determine the grounds for quashing the FIR. It emphasized that the nature of the offence and its impact on society are crucial factors in deciding whether to quash an FIR.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the petition for quashing the FIR, considering the heinous nature of the offence and the societal impact.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 21699/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5768/2023
3. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking quashing of e-FIR bearing no. 000426/2020 dated 31.10.2020 registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offence punishable under Sections 392/394/397/411/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959.
4. Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
5. The FIR in the present case was lodged on the complaint of the complainant himself who had alleged that on 30.10.2020 at about 9:15 PM, when he was going home to Mukundpur from Gandhi Nagar where he works in a shop and had reached ISBT, Bus Depot near Hanuman Mandir and had boarded a TSR in which two persons were already sitting. When the TSR had reached Burari bypass flyover, one of the persons sitting in the TSR had caught hold of his neck and had also put a knife on the side of his waist. The TSR driver had stopped the TSR, had caught hold of his legs and the third one had taken out his mobile phone, Rs.7000/- and ATM card from his pocket, after beating him. Thereafter, they had pushed him on the road and had fled away from the spot. The complainant had chased him with the help of a person on a motorcycle and they were able to note down the registration number of the TSR. The accused persons were arrested who disclosed that the mobile phone belonging to the complainant was sold, Rs.2000/- out of Rs.7000/-, were spent by the accused persons and the mobile phone was sold for Rs.1000/- to some other person. The person to whom the phone was sold informed the police that after coming to know about registration of the FIR, he had returned the phone to accused Ajay. Accused Vipin and Nitin also refused to take part in the Test Identification Parade.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and the accused is ready to compensate the complainant. He states that the complainant is present in person and he has no objection, if the FIR is quashed.
7. This Court has gone through the statements of the complainant himself, the FIR and the other documents filed on record.
8. The allegations are serious in nature where robbery has been committed by the accused persons when the complainant was going home from his work place. It is also taken note by this Court that quashing on the basis of compromise cannot be asked for as a matter of right, in case the complainant appears before a Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR but has to be quashed on the basis of the guidelines and the principles laid down under law and relevant judicial precedents.
9. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the principles to be considered while quashing FIRs. The same are reproduced as under for reference:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
The nature of the offence and its impact on society are crucial factors in deciding whether to quash an FIR.
Quashing of FIR should be an exception and rarity, and the court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR.
Quashing of FIR should be sparingly exercised, especially in cases of serious offences, and the Court should not interfere with the investigation at the initial stage.
The Court can quash non-compoundable offences under its inherent jurisdiction if the settlement between the parties justifies the exercise of such power and the continuation of the prosecution would ....
The inherent power under section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, to serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. The court also highlighted the principles that g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power to quash proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the accused and the victim, emphasizing the ref....
The exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution is justified when there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire trial is destined to be an exer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings based on a compromise, considering the nature....
The main legal point established is that the inherent powers of the court under section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between the parties, consideri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.