Full Judgment
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2830/2013 % Date of decision: September 17, 2013 ARJUN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Pradeep Teotia & Ms. Anupriya Yadav, Adv. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. SI Bal Singh, P.S. Mandawali. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.
* 1. This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR no.378/2010 u/s 307/324/341/34 IPC registered with Police Station Mandawali and the proceedings emanating therefrom which are stated to be pending before the ld.ASJ, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused persons who are facing trial before the ld.ASJ for committing offence punishable u/s 307/324/341/34 IPC.
3. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 13th July, 2010 at about 9 pm, house of Babloo, worker of respondent no.2 went to repair fridge at the petitioners i.e., C-23, Gali no.2, Chander Vihar, Delhi. After repairing the fridge when the said worker had asked money, he was given beatings. The said worker telephoned respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 i.e., complainant, his friend Angad and another worker Ravi proceeded towards the abovesaid house of the petitioners. On the way, petitioners and their father Munesh (since deceased) stopped respondent no.2 and told that “TU BADA KARIGAR BANTA HAI. AAJ TERE KO MAJA CHAKHATE HAIN”. Thereupon, petitioner nos.1 and 2 and their father Munesh (since deceased) caught hold of respondent no.2 and petitioner no.3 inflicted injuries on head and hands of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 sustained injuries and was taken to Max Balaji Hospital. There on his statement, aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners. It is stated that a cross FIR no.379/2010 u/s 341/323/34 IPC was also registered against respondent no.2 and his associates.
4. It is stated that during the trial, matter has been amicably settled vide compromise deed dated 18th March, 2013 wherein parties have agreed for quashing of FIR in question as well as quashing of FIR in cross case. It is stated that in order to maintain peace and harmony and to maintain good relations among themselves, parties have entered into a compromise.
5. Learned APP has opposed the petition by contending that offences alleged against the petitioners include offence u/s 307/34 IPC. It is stated that respondent no.2 sustained serious injuries on vital part of his body. Learned APP has shown the MLC of respondent no.2/injured. It is stated that prosecution has almost completed its evidence before the ld.trial court and the case is at final stage of trial. Further offence is heinous, as such, inherent powers be not exercised by this court for quashing of FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
6. I have considered the submissions made.
7. It may be noticed that FIR is of the year 2010. The evidence of injured and other supporting witnesses have already been recorded in the trial court. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another: (2012) 10 SCC303 it has been held that the High Court can exercise inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing criminal proceedings or FIR involving non compoundable offences in view of the compromise between the parties. However, at the same time, it has been held that exercise of inherent power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and before exercise of such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
8. In the present case, petitioners have been charged for committing attempt to murder. The case is at fag end of the trial. These cases have serious impact on the society. The injuries sustained by victim were multiple. One of the lacerated wounds on scalp was L shaped and was 15 cm in size. Further the settlement/MOU is not convincing. The possibility of victim having signed the same under pressure also cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the present is not a fit case where inherent power should be exercised to terminate the ongoing criminal proceedings on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. The petition stands dismissed. VEENA BIRBAL, J SEPTEMBER17 2013 ssb