SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Mohd. Umair @ Umer - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 674 of 2021
Decided On : 12-03-2021




Quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for non-compoundable offences like Section 307 IPC is discretionary and requires a balance between justice for the individual and societal interests.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Quashing of FIR - The petition was filed to quash FIR No.50/2020 for attempted murder, citing a settlement between parties - The Court noted that while the High Court has power to quash FIRs based on compromises, such power is not absolute; especially for heinous crimes which impact society. The petitioner, a 21-year-old without a criminal record, had entered a settlement and expressed regret, hence the FIR was quashed with direction for community service and costs. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 10, 11)

(B) The Court outlined that offences like Section 307 IPC are considered heinous and their quashing requires careful deliberation of the nature of injuries and evidence. (Paras 15.1, 15.4, 15.6)

Table of Content
1. complaint and nature of incident (Para 1 , 2)
2. power to quash fir based on settlement (Para 3 , 4)
3. guidelines for quashing under section 482 (Para 5)
4. factors considered for forgiveness in youth (Para 6 , 7)
5. conditions and consequences of quashing (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing FIR No.50/2020 dated 26.03.2020, registered in Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi, for offence under Section 307 IPC.

2. On a complaint of respondent No.2, FIR No.50/2020 has been registered. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant resides at H.No.536, Gali Hakim Ji, Choori Walan, Jama Masjid, Delhi. It is stated that on 26.03.2020 at about 11:00 AM his neighbour Furkan called him and asked him to deliver some items to his house. It is stated that on the way to the house of Furkan the complainant/respondent No.2 met the accused who was arguing with his mother. It is stated that when the petitioner asked the accused not to argue with his mother, the accused started abusing the complainant and started fighting with him. It is stated that the accused slapped the complainant and when people gathered there the accused threatened the complainant and went towards his house. It is alleged that about 11.30/12.30 the accused stabbed the complainant on the stomach. The records indicate that the complainant was taken to L.N Hospital. In the MLC the doctor has recorded the present case to be one of physical assault near home address at around 12.00 PM on 26.03.2020, stab injury in the abdomen. Charge-sheet has been filed against the complainant. The charge-sheet states that the complainant has suffered grievous injuries. The accused/petitioner has been released on bail on 27.04.2020.

3. This petition has been filed on the ground that after the intervention of the parents and the well-wishers the parties have stated to settle their disputes. A settlement deed dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P-2) has been filed.

4. It is well settled that the High Court has the power to quash FIR/complaint on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed as under:

    "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.:

    (i) to secure the ends of justice, or

    (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

    In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top