CRL.M.C./5167/2014 of BAL KRISHAN & ORS Vs STATE & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 5167/2014

Date of Decision : March 28[th], 2016

BAL KRISHAN & ORS

..... Petitioner

Throughversus

Mr.C.S. Rathore, Adv.

STATE & ORS

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP for the Statewith Mr.Sunil Kumar, SI, PS GeetaColony.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read withSection 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.BalKishan, Sh.Bhanwar Singh @ Bhubneshwar, Sh.Narender Kumar,Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Ms.Bhanu Priya, Ms.Pooja and Ms.Sunita @Chanchal for quashing of FIR No.382/2007 dated 29.10.2007, underSections 147/148/149/323/307/325/34 IPC registered at Police StationGeeta Colony on the basis of the settlement arrived at between thepetitioners and respondent nos.2 to 5, namely, Roshan Devi, Sh.Ravi,Sh.Vipin and Sh.Sachin, respectively.

2.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant, namely, Sh. Rohtash Singh on theallegation that on 29.10.2007, on account of Karvachauth, banglesellers were sitting outside the complainant’s plot from whom the

complainant had to take Rs.450/- but Balkishan-petitioner no.1 who isthe son of the complainant’s uncle took the same from them and wentaway. At about 12:15 midnight, when the complainant inquired fromthe petitioner no.1 as to why he had taken the said amount, Balkishan,his son Narender and Rajesh and the son of his brother-in-lawBhanwar Singh and his daughter Bhanu, Chanchal and Pooja startedfighting with the complainant, upon which the nephew of thecomplainant i.e. Sachin, complainant’s wife Roshan Devi, his sister-in-law Bela Devi and his son Ravi came out upon which the scuffleescalated. Then, Balkishan-petitioner no.1 brought sword from hishouse and gave it to Rajesh-petitioner no.4 and he attacked Sachin-respondent no.5 with it and then petitioner no.1 gave the knife blowinto the stomach of the complainant. Simultaneously, the Narinder-petitioner no.3 hit the complainant and broke his arm. Whereas, theChanchal, Pooja and Bhanu hit the respondent no.2-Roshan Devi onher head with brick, rodi and dandas. Bhanwar Singh caused injurieson the head of the complainant.

3.Later on, the complainant expired on 12.05.2010 and he issurvived by his legal heirs namely, respondent nos. 2 to 4 who are alsoinjured persons. cross case bearing case FIR No.381/2007 dated29.10.2007 under Sections 147/148/149/307/323 IPC and Sections24/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Geeta Colony was registered onaccount of the same incident against Bhupinder Kumar @ Lala, ShivRaj, Rohtash (complainant-herein), Sachin, Vipin, Ravi, UmeshKumar and Smt. Bela Devi. Later on, respondent nos.2 to 5 and thepetitioners mutually settled their past disputes, differences etc.

peacefully against each other.

4.The State has filed status report on record. As per the statusreport, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed inthe matter on 06.12.2007 and charges were framed under Sections147/148/304 r/w 149 IPC. Copy of the order on charge framed by theLd. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated 12.07.2011 has beenplaced on record whereby the petitioners were charged under Sections147/148/149/307 IPC.

5.MLC has been placed on record as per which, Roshan Devisuffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incident which were caused by bluntobject and she suffered injuries on her right frontal region andabrasion of her left knee; Rohtash-complainant suffered ‘grevious’injuries in the incident which were caused by sharp edged weaponand blunt object and he suffered stab wound and other injuries; Sachinsuffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incident which were caused by sharpedged weapon and blunt object and he suffered stab wound and certainbruises; and Ravi suffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incident which werecaused by blunt object and suffered abrasions on his knees, leftshoulder and on the right ankle joint.

6.The counsel of the petitioners relied upon various judgmentssuch as “Bishan Singh v. State & Anr., 130 (2006) DLT 210” inwhich the Court observed that even non-compoundable offences canbe settled and FIR can be quashed. Further, the counsel relied uponjudgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryanaand another, 2003 (4) SCC 675 in which the Hon’ble Apex Courtobserved that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it didnot limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C. On the same grounds, the counsel of the petitioner relied uponin the cases of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr,.(2008) 9 SCC 677;DimpleGujral&Ors.v.UnionTerritorythroughAdministrator,U.T. Chandigarh & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 5333.

7.I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 10 SCC 303, theHon’ble Supreme Court observed that heinous and serious offences ofmental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statuteslike Prevention of Corruption Act or offenecs committed by publicservants while working in their official capacity, cannot be quashedeven though victim or victims family and the offender have settled thedispute. Such offenecs are not private in nature and have seriousimpact on the society. On similar point, reliance can be placed onNarinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 in which it wasfurther observed that offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in thecategory of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to begenerally treated as crime against the society and not against theindividual alone.

Further in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC149 it was observed as under:

“15. We are not prepared to say that the crimealleged to have been committed by the accusedpersons was crime against an individual, onthe other hand it was crime against the society

atlarge.Criminallawisdesignedasamechanism for achieving social control and itspurpose is the regulation of conduct andactivities within the society. Why Section 307IPCisheldtobenon-compoundable,isbecause the Code has identified which conductshould be brought within the ambit of non-compoundable offences. Such provisions arenot meant just to protect the individual but thesociety as whole. The High Court was notright in thinking that it was only an injury to theperson and since the accused persons (sicvictims)hadreceivedthemonetarycompensation and settled the matter, the crimeas against them was wiped off. Criminal justicesystem has larger objective to achieve, that is,safety and protection of the people at large andit would be lesson not only to the offender,but to the individuals at large so that suchcrimes would not be committed by anyone andmoney would not be substitute for the crimecommitted against the society. Taking lenientview on serious offence like the present, willleave wrong impression about the criminaljustice systemandwillencouragefurthercriminal acts, which will endanger the peacefulcoexistence and welfare of the society atlarge.”9.This Court further observes that the FIR in the present case hasbeen registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/325/34 IPCwhich clearly are offences against the society at large and not privatein nature. Perusal of the MLC also establishes that all the victims havesuffered injuries. As observed in the aforesaid cases i.e. NarinderSingh (supra), Shambhu Kewat (supra) and Gian Singh (supra),

offences which are heinous and against the society shall not becompounded having regard to nature of injuries and the magnitude ofimpact even though the victims and the offenders have compromisedtheir matter and seek the quashing of the FIR in the case. Applying theratio/principle laid down in the said cases to the facts of the presentcase, this Court finds that the injuries inflicted on the complainant andother victims were very serious in nature. The accused persons werearmed with sword and knife and gave the knife blow in the stomach ofthe complainant and also hit the complainant on his head and broke hisarm. Moreover, the accused persons also inflicted blows on the headsof the other injured persons.

10.In the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above,this Court does not find it fit case to quash the FIR No.382/2007dated 29.10.2007, under Sections 147/148/149/323/307/325/34 IPCregistered at Police Station Geeta Colony. Same is hereby dismissed.12.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 28, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE