* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5168/2014 Date of Decision : March 28th, 2016 BHUPINDER KUMAR @ LALA & ORS Petitioners Through Mr.[ENTITY], Adv. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS Respondents Through Mr.[ENTITY], APP for the State with SI [ENTITY], PS Geeta Colony. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [ENTITY], J.
1. The present petition under [SECTION] [ACT] read with [SECTION] [ACT] has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.[ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY] and Sh.[ENTITY] for quashing of FIR No.381/2007 dated 29.10.2007, under [SECTION]/323 [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] registered at Police Station Geeta Colony the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 5, namely, Sh.[ENTITY], Ms.[ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY] and Ms.[ENTITY], respectively.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant, namely, Sh. [ENTITY] on the allegation that on 29.10.2007, at around 12.15 in the night, while the son of the complainant namely, [ENTITY] was closing the shop, [ENTITY], who is the son of the uncle of the complainant along with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] started abusing [ENTITY]. The complainant came there and found that [ENTITY] was having a knife in his hand, [ENTITY] had a sword and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were having dandas and lathis in their hands. [ENTITY] was also standing there and was extending threats. The accused persons then attacked [ENTITY] with the sword and the knife and they threw the goods of the shop and attacked the complainant too. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] caught hold of the complainant and [ENTITY] gave the knife blow in the abdomen of the complainant whereas, [ENTITY] attacked him with the sword and injured his left hand. Whereupon, the family members of the complainant also came there and they were also attacked upon.
3. Later on, [ENTITY] expired on 12.05.2010. A cross case bearing case FIR No.382/2007 dated 29.10.2007 under [SECTION] [ACT], Police Station Geeta Colony was registered on account of the same incident against respondent nos.2 to 5-herein. Later on, respondent nos.2 to 5 and petitioners mutually settled their past disputes, differences etc. peacefully against each other.
4. The State has filed a status report on record. As per the status report, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the matter on 06.12.2007 and charges were framed under [SECTION] r/[SECTION] [ACT]. Copy of the order on charge framed by the Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated 12.07.2011 has been placed on record whereby the petitioners were charged under [SECTION] [ACT].
5. MLC has been placed on record as per which, [ENTITY] suffered 'simple' injuries in the incident which were caused by a sharp double edged weapon and he suffered three stab wounds; [ENTITY] complainant suffered 'simple' injuries in the incident which were caused by sharp edged weapon and he suffered two stab wounds; [ENTITY] suffered 'simple' injuries in the incident which were caused by a blunt object and she suffered lacerated wound on here occipital region; and [ENTITY] suffered 'simple' injuries in the incident which were caused by a sharp weapon and a blunt object.
6. The counsel of the petitioners relied upon various judgments such as [PRECEDENT] in which the Court observed that even non-compoundable offences can be settled and FIR can be quashed. Further, the counsel relied upon in the case of [PRECEDENT] in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under [SECTION] [ACT] On the same grounds, the counsel of the petitioner relied upon the cases of [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] 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 [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. or under special statutes like [ACT] or offenecs committed by public servants while working in their official capacity, cannot be quashed even though victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offenecs are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. On similar point, reliance can be placed on [ENTITY] Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 in which it was further observed that offences under [SECTION] [ACT] would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.
Further in [PRECEDENT] it was observed as under:
"15. We are not prepared to say that the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused persons was a crime against an individual, on the other hand it was a crime against the society at large. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of conduct and activities within the society. Why [SECTION] [ACT] is held to be non-compoundable, is because the Code has identified which conduct should be brought within the ambit of non-
compoundable offences. Such provisions are not meant just to protect the individual but the society as a whole. The High Court was not right in thinking that it was only an injury to the person and since the accused persons (sic victims) had received the monetary compensation and settled the matter, the crime as against them was wiped off. Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is, safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by anyone and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful coexistence and welfare of the society at large."
9. This Court further observes that the FIR in the present case has been registered under [SECTION] [ACT] & [SECTION] of the [ACT] which clearly are offences against the society at large and not private in nature. Perusal of the MLC also establishes that all the victims have suffered injuries. As observed in the aforesaid cases i.e. [ENTITY] Singh (supra), [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [PRECEDENT] (supra), offences which are heinous and against the society shall not be compounded having regard to nature of injuries and the magnitude of impact even though the victims and the offenders have compromised their matter and seek the quashing of the FIR in the case. Applying the ratio/principle laid down in the said cases to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the injuries inflicted on the complainant and other victims were very serious in nature. The accused persons were armed with sword and knife and gave the knife blow in the abdomen of the complainant and he was also hit by a sword on his left hand. Moreover, very serious injuries were caused to the son of the complainant as he was stabbed thrice as per the MLC with a sharp weapon and the accused persons also inflicted 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 a fit case to quash the FIR No.381/2007 dated 29.10.2007, under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] registered at Police Station Geeta Colony. Same is hereby dismissed.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE MARCH 28, 2016 dd