CRL.M.C./5762/2023 of SANDEEP KUMAR Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5762/2023 and CRL.M.A. 21673/2023

SANDEEP KUMAR

.....Petitioner

Through: None

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Geeta

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R R22.07.2024

1. None for the petitioner. It is noted that the petitioner has remained unrepresented even on 04.01.2024.

2. With the assistance of learned APP for the State, this Court has examined the case file. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.556/2020 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at P.S. Mahendra Park, Delhi and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. It is noted that the present FIR is sought to be quashed merely on the ground that the parties have arrived at settlement.

4. Learned APP for the State has taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition and submits that offences are grave and serious in nature. Further, the complainant has supported her version in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the chargesheet has been filed and the charge has been framed.

In support of his submission, he has referred to the Supreme Court 1decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. and State of Madhya 2Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.

5. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), has observed as under: “xxx “xxx

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society…. xxx”

6. Considering the import of the aforenoted decision and the similar observations made by the Court in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana reported as (2014) 13 SCC 318, as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, I find no ground to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the same is

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

2 (2019) 5 SCC 688

dismissed alongwith the pending application.

JULY 22, 2024 na

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J