In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR under Sections 308/365/34 IPC in the case involving Vipin and his acquaintances, including Naveen. This decision comes after a settlement agreement was reached between the parties, resolving the disputes amicably. The State, represented by the Learned APP, has no objections to the quashing of the FIR. A positive step towards justice and resolution in the case.
Facts
- The complainant, Vipin, alleged that he was assaulted by a group of boys on his way home from school on 18.10.2023.
- The boys tried to force him into a car, and when he resisted, they assaulted him.
- The names of the accused provided by the complainant are Vipin, Naveen, Sanju, Akshay @ Laadu, Harsh Yadav, and Nishant.
- The incident was reported on 19.10.2023 and Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was invoked during the investigation.
Arguments
- Petitioners fall within the age group of 19 to 23 years and have clean past antecedents.
- All petitioners, including Original Name of Respondent No.2, were students at the time of the alleged incident and are currently pursuing their studies.
- The alleged occurrence stemmed from a minor incident between the petitioners and Original Name of Respondent No.2, who are close acquaintances residing in the same vicinity.
- The disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved through a Settlement Deed dated 26.10.2023.
- The State, represented by the Learned APP, has no objection to quashing the FIR in light of the settlement agreement.
Analysis
- Serious offences like murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be quashed despite settlement due to their nature and impact on society.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to secure justice or prevent court process abuse.
- Quashing criminal proceedings depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
- Offences with civil dispute elements or minor incidents stand differently in quashing proceedings if the victim is compensated.
- High Courts can assess if there is enough evidence for the offence charged with.
- Assessment of compromise between parties is essential
- Consideration of possibility of conviction being remote
- Evaluation of whether continuation of proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused
- No past involvement of petitioners in the case
- Principles for quashing of FIR have been delineated in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641.
- FIRs under Sections 308/323/341/34 IPC have been quashed based on settlement between the parties in ‘Laxman Karotia & Ors. vs The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.’
Decision
- Petitioners and parties are closely known to each other.
- All disputes between the parties have been amicably settled.
- No further objection for quashing of FIR from Petitioner No 2.
- Chances of conviction are bleak due to amicable settlement.
- Continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the court process.
- Settlement promotes harmony and allows parties to move forward in life.
- Upkeep of saplings/trees to be handled by authorities.
- Petition is disposed of, pending applications also stand disposed of.
- Non-compliance with planting trees directive will result in a fine.
- Instead of a fine, petitioners must plant 10 saplings each in local parks.
- Sapling planting to be coordinated with relevant authorities.
- Photographs of planted saplings and report to be submitted to the Court.
- FIR No 479/2023 under Sections 308/365/34 IPC and related proceedings are quashed.
Case Title: VIPIN AND ANR. & ORS. Vs. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR (2024:DHC:4199)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-2137/2024
