CRL.M.C./6627/2018 of SHAKEEL AHMAD @ BABLOO & ANR Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 6627/2018

SHAKEEL AHMAD @ BABLOO & ANR..... PetitionersThroughMr. Mahee Arora, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP with SISumit, P.S. Jamia NagarRespondent no.2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%21.01.2019

Notice.Learned APPaccepts noticeforrespondent no. 1.Respondent no.2 Mr. Parvez Alam is present in Court and accepts notice.

He has been identified by SI Sumit of police station Jamia Nagar.

After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences underSections 325/341/506/34 IPC. However, charge under Section 325 IPC wasnot framed; instead charges under Sections 324/341/506/34 IPC wereframed.Additional charge under Section 174-A IPC was also framedagainst the petitioners as they absconded.

During the trial, petitioners and respondent no. 2 have settled their

disputes amicably. Consequently, offences under Sections 341/506/34 IPChave been permitted to be compounded by the trial court, vide order dated2[nd]July, 2018.

By this petition, petitioner and private respondent have prayed forquashing of FIR no. 68/2011 for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC andSection 174-A IPC in view of the settlement. Respondent no.2 says that hehas settled the disputes with petitioners of his own free will and without anyundue force and pressure.It is noted that offence under Section 174-A IPCcannot be quashed as this is as result of non-appearance of the accused inresponse to the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Considering the nature of allegations in FIR, I deem it fit to quash theaforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings in respect of Sections 324/34IPC in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners andrespondent no.2 voluntarily.However, since Section 174-A IPC is astandalone provision, which has no bearing to the other offences alleged andis not an offence of personal nature inter-se the parties i.e. the petitionersand respondent No.2, this Court refrains from quashing the proceedings quaSection 174-A IPC. Reliance is placed on the order dated 30[th]September,2016 passed by Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction in Crl. M.C. no.

3683/2016 titled Pradeep Kumar Sehdev vs. The State (Govt. of NCT ofDelhi) & Anr.

For the foregoing reasons, FIR and the consequent proceedings arequashed under Section 324/34 IPC. However, trial may continue against thepetitioners with regard to the offence under Section 174-A IPC.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

JANUARY 21, 2019r.bararia

A.K. PATHAK, J.