Delhi High Court- In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) under Section 352/354A/506/509 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Mendiratta*, J., quashed the petition and held that as the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending.
The Court directed ’ The petitioner need to plant 30 saplings of trees, up to 03 feet in height in the local parks in the area of P.S Patel Nagar. In case of non-compliance of directions for planting of trees, the Petitioner should be liable to deposit the cost of Rs. 30,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Service Authority.’
Background-
In an instant case, a FIR was filed against the Petitioner by the complainant (Respondent 2) niece of the Petitioner, on the ground that she was harassed and assaulted by the Petitioner along with the Petitioner’s wife on 11-11-2016.
Submissions
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both petitioner as well as complainant are closely related, and FIR was lodged on account of minor differences on family issues. He further submitted that family disputes have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of Settlement Deed dated 22-04-2024. However, Counsel for the State pointed out that the petitioner is also involved in another FIR, but since the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
Analysis-
The Court noted that very serious crimes like murder, rape, or robbery driven by cruelty cannot be stopped even if the parties settle. However, distinguished from serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil dispute or offences involving minor incidents, where the complainant/victim also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing.. The Court could also check if there was enough evidence to proceed with the case or if the chance of conviction was slim due to a settlement. If continuing the case would unfairly harm the accused, the court can stop the proceedings.
As the Court further noted that the Petitioner and Respondent in front of SI Ravi Shankar, P.S. Patel Nagar had confirmed that the matter had been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion, and the Respondent no. 2 had also submitted that she had no further grievances in the regard.
The Court stated that no useful purpose should be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR under Sections 352/354A/506/509 IPC, registered at PS: Patel Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
The Court directed the Petitioner to plant 30 saplings of trees which were up to 03 Feet in height in the local parks in the area of P.S. Patel Nagar after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD/DDA/Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through IO/SHO, P.S. Patel Nagar. The photographs of planted saplings along with report of IO/SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings/trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non-compliance of directions for planting of trees, the petitioner shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 30,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
[Inderjeet v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3698, decided on 17-05-2024]
*Judgement by- Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Shalini Kakar, Vikas Singh, Syed Mussayain Kazmi, Sham Lal Garg, Yogtesh Hogi, Sana Zaidi & Sushma Mathura, Advocates.
For Respondents: Kiran Bairwa, Assistant Public Prosecutor for State with SI Inspector Koshor Kumar, P.S. South Rohini, SI Ravi Shankar, P.S. Patel Nagar.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
