CRL.M.C./5685/2024 of PANKAJ KUMAR Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.M.C. 5685/2024PANKAJ KUMAR.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State withSI Ramesh Kumar, PS. Lodhi Colony.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJANO R R

06.02.2025

1.The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seekingquashing of FIR No.5/2018 under Sections 354/323/506 IPC registered atPolice Station Lodhi Colony and all consequential proceedings emanatingtherefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at settlement.

2.Notice was issued in the present petition on 26.07.2024.

3.The learned APP submits that since the parties have arrived at asettlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

4.The petitioner has joined through VC whereas the respondent nos.2(complainant) and 3 are present in Court and they have been identified bytheir respective counsel, as well as, by the Investigating Officer SI RameshKumar, PS. Lodhi Colony.

5.The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered at the instanceof the respondent no.2/complainant alleging that the petitioner misbehavedwith respondent no.2 and had also pushed her on account of which she

suffered simple injury. It is further alleged that the petitioner also raised handon the respondent no.3 and extended threats.

6.During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at asettlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form ofMemorandum of Understanding dated 22.12.2023, which is annexed asAnnexure P-3 to the present petition.

7.It is term of the settlement that the parties with the intervention offamily and friends have resolved all their disputes amicably without anycoercion or pressure.

8.It is mentioned in the settlement that the respondent nos.2 and 3 willcooperate with the petitioner for the quashing of the present FIR.

9.The respondent nos.2 and 3, on query posed by the Court, states thatthey have no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

10.In this regard, reference may advantageously be made to decision ofCo-ordinate bench of this Court in Jagdish Khatri vs. State of NCT of Delhiand Anr.[1]wherein it was held as under:

“4. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is of wideplenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised inaccord with the guidance engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to securethe ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of anycourt. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC303, the Supreme Court has observed that in the exercise of itsinherent power under Section 482, the High Court can quashFIR/Charge-sheet on the basis of alleged settlement except in casesof rape, murder, dacoity or the cases under the Special Statutes likePrevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by publicservants while working in that capacity etc. It is settledproposition of law that High Courts should exercise the power

1 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1336.

under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour.

5. It has also been repeatedly held that the High Court may quashthe criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromisebetween the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction isremote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would putthe accused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal casedespite full and complete settlement and compromise with thevictim. Reliance can be placed upon Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692.

6. Respondent no. 2 is present in court and has duly been identifiedby the IO. She states that she has entered into the settlementvoluntarily and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Affidavitof Respondent no. 2 has also been placed on record.

7. In view of the above, it appears that he is not going to support thecase of the prosecution and the possibility of conviction is remoteand bleak. In view of the matter, the continuation of the criminalproceedings would be an exercise in futility and it is an abuse of theprocess of the court. There would no purpose in continuing with thepresent proceedings and accordingly, the FIR No. 157/2017 underSections 354 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar and allthe other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

8. The present petition stands disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances ofconviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminalproceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise infutility.

12.It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the otherproceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

13.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.5/2018 underSections 354/323/506 IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony

alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

14.The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

15.Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

FEBRUARY 6, 2025/dss

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J