CRL.M.C./5168/2014 of BHUPINDER KUMAR @ LALA & ORS Vs STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 5168/2014

Date of Decision : March 28[th], 2016..... Petitioners

BHUPINDER KUMAR @ LALA & ORS

ThroughMr.Pramod Kumar, Adv.

versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.K.K. Ghai, APP for the State withSI Sunil Kumar, PS Geeta Colony.

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.Bhupinder Kumar @ Lala, Sh.Sachin, Sh.Vipin and Sh.RaviChauhan for quashing of FIR No.381/2007 dated 29.10.2007, underSections 147/148/149/307/323 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the ArmsAct registered at Police Station Geeta Colony the basis of thesettlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to5,namely,Sh.BalKishan,Ms.BhanuPriya,Sh.NarenderandMs.Pooja, respectively.

2.The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in questionwas lodged by the complainant, namely, Sh. Bal Kishan on theallegation that on 29.10.2007, at around 12.15 in the night, while theson of the complainant namely, Narender was closing the shop,Rohtash, who is the son of the uncle of the complainant along with

Vipin, Ravi and Sachin started abusing Narender. The complainantcame there and found that Rohtash was having knife in his hand,Sachin had sword and Ravi and Vipin were having dandas and lathisin their hands. Bela Devi was also standing there and was extendingthreats. The accused persons then attacked Narender with the swordand the knife and they threw the goods of the shop and attacked thecomplainant too. Umesh, Bhupinder and Shivraj caught hold of thecomplainant and Rohtash gave the knife blow in the abdomen of thecomplainant whereas, Sachin attacked him with the sword and injuredhis left hand. Whereupon, the family members of the complainant alsocame there and they were also attacked upon.

3.Later on, Rohtash expired on 12.05.2010. cross case bearingcaseFIRNo.382/2007dated29.10.2007underSections147/148/149/307/323/325/34 IPC, Police Station Geeta Colony wasregistered on account of the same incident against respondent nos.2 to5-herein. Later on, respondent nos.2 to 5 and petitioners mutuallysettled their past disputes, differences etc. peacefully against eachother.

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, Narinder suffered

‘simple’ injuries in the incident which were caused by sharp doubleedged weapon and he suffered three stab wounds; Bal Kishan-complainant suffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incident which werecaused by sharp edged weapon and he suffered two stab wounds;Bhanu Priya suffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incident which werecaused by blunt object and she suffered lacerated wound on hereoccipital region; and Pooja suffered ‘simple’ injuries in the incidentwhich were caused by sharp weapon and blunt object.

6.The counsel of the petitioners relied upon various judgmentssuch as Bishan Singh v. State & Anr., 130 (2006) DLT 210 in whichthe Court observed that even non-compoundable offences can besettled and FIR can be quashed. Further, the counsel relied upon in thecase of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(4) SCC 675 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that eventhough the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to suchoffences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect thepowers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the samegrounds, the counsel of the petitioner relied upon the cases of NikhilMerchant v. CBI & Anr,.(2008) 9 SCC 677; Dimple Gujral & Ors. v.Union Territory through Administrator,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 public

servants 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 SCC

149 it was observed as under:

“15. We are not prepared to say that thecrime alleged to have been committed by theaccused persons was crime against anindividual, on the other hand it was crimeagainst the society at large. Criminal law isdesigned as mechanism for achievingsocialcontrolanditspurposeistheregulation of conduct and activities withinthe society. Why Section 307 IPC is held tobenon-compoundable,isbecause theCode has identified which conduct should bebroughtwithintheambitofnon-compoundable offences. Such provisions arenot meant just to protect the individual butthe society as whole. The High Court wasnot right in thinking that it was only aninjury to the person and since the accusedpersons(sicvictims)hadreceivedthemonetarycompensationandsettledthematter, the crime as against them was wipedoff. Criminal justice system has larger

objective to achieve, that is, safety andprotection of the people at large and it wouldbe lesson not only to the offender, but tothe individuals at large so that such crimeswould not be committed by anyone andmoney would not be substitute for thecrime committed against the society. Takinga lenient view on serious offence like thepresent, will leave wrong impression aboutthecriminaljusticesystemandwillencourage further criminal acts, which willendangerthepeacefulcoexistenceandwelfare of the society at large.”

9.This Court further observes that the FIR in the present case hasbeen registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/307 IPC & Sections25/54/59 of the Arms Act which clearly are offences against thesociety at large and not private in nature. Perusal of the MLC alsoestablishes that all the victims have suffered injuries. As observed inthe aforesaid cases i.e. Narinder Singh (supra), Shambhu Kewat(supra) and Gian Singh (supra), offences which are heinous andagainst the society shall not be compounded having regard to nature ofinjuries and the magnitude of impact even though the victims and theoffenders have compromised their matter and seek the quashing of theFIR in the case. Applying the ratio/principle laid down in the saidcases to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the injuriesinflicted on the complainant and other victims were very serious innature. The accused persons were armed with sword and knife andgave the knife blow in the abdomen of the complainant and he wasalso hit by sword on his left hand. Moreover, very serious injuries

were caused to the son of the complainant as he was stabbed thrice asper the MLC with sharp weapon and the accused persons alsoinflicted injuries on the other injured persons by bricks.

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.381/2007dated 29.10.2007, under Sections 147/148/149/323/307 IPC andSections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station GeetaColony. Same is hereby dismissed.

12.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 28, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE