Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is the regulation of conduct and activities within the society: High Court of Delhi
While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise. This was held in the case of Mahender Singh v The State, [CRL.M.C.852/2021 & CRL.M.A.4232/2021] by Hon’ble Justice Subramonium Prasad in the High Court of Delhi.
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing FIR, registered in Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi, for offence under Section 308/34 IPC. It was reported that when the complainant and his friend Dheeraj were returning from their coaching on his Splendor Bike, at about 8:00-8:15 PM, they were stopped by the accused near Sona Public School. It is stated that the petitioner kicked the bike and the complainant and his friend fell down from the bike and the petitioners started beating Dheeraj. It is stated that when the complainant tried to stop the accused, the accused started abusing the complainant and started fighting with him. It is stated that the accused Sunny/petitioner No.1 picked up a danda and hit the complainant on his head and the complainant fell on the ground. When people gathered there the accused threatened the complainant of dire consequences and left. It is stated that the brother of the complainant came there and called the Police. A PCR Van came and took the victims to the AIIMS Trauma Centre. In the MLC the doctor recorded the nature of injury and it was opined that the victim had sustained minor head injury with left periorbital swelling. Charge-sheet has been filed against the accused. The accused/petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 04.02.2018.
The present case is for quashing the criminal proceedings for offences under Section 308 IPC. There was a conflict of opinion in various judgments by the Supreme Court as to whether an offence under Section 307 IPC could be quashed by the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149, held that an offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed by the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.
The Court noted that the facts of the present case disclose that the injuries sustained by the complainants are simple and minor in nature and the counsel for the petitioners stated that the parties are related to each other and for peace in the family the FIR be quashed. The petitioners are accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC and this petition has been filed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Keeping in mind the fact that the petitioners are youngsters, petitioner No.1 is about 22 years old and the petitioner No.2 is about 25 years old, having entire life ahead of them, the fact that the parties are related to each other and the injury sustained by the complainant is only minor in nature, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.