Allowed

Zakir Hussain v. State

Delhi HC18 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./5377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed cross-FIRs registered for offences under the IPC arising from a road rage incident, relying on a settlement deed between the parties. While noting the availability of cost, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and applied principles laid down in Narinder Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir.

What did the court decide?

Cross-FIRs No. 338/2018 and 489/2016 quashed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- by each petitioner.

Zakir Hussain Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~77 & 83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 ZAKIR HUSSAIN & OTHERS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohd. Tasleem, Adv. Petitioners in person versus STATE .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Mr. Prateek Kumar Shahi, Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Renu Dalal, Advs. SI Pankaj Kumar, PSJyoti Nagar R2 in person

¶4

CRL.M.C. 5412/2024 GAURAV TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Mr. Prateek Kumar Shahi, Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Renu Dalal, Advs. SI Pankaj Kumar, PSJyoti Nagar R2 to R5 in person

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶6

O R D E R % 18.07.2024

¶7

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶8

Page 1 of 7

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:55:26

¶10

CRL.M.A. 20603/2024 in CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 (for exemption) CRL.M.A. 20713/2024 in CRL.M.C. 5412/2024 (for exemption)

¶11

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶14

The present petitions are filed seeking quashing of crossFIRs being FIR No. 338/2018 dated 26.09.2018, registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, for offences under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC’ ) and FIR No. 489/2016 dated 21.11.2016, registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, for offences under Sections 323/341/308/34 of IPC.

¶15

FIR No. 338/2018 was registered on a complaint filed by Mr. Gourav Tyagi (Respondent No.2/ Complainant in CRL.M.C. 5377/2024) and FIR No. 489/2016 was registered on a complaint filed by Mr. Zakir Hussan (Respondent No. 2 in CRL.M.C. 5412/2024). The charge sheets have already been filed in these cases.

¶16

It is alleged that a scuffle took place between the parties due to road rage, after the car of Mr. Zakir Hussan hit the motorcycle driven by Mr. Gourav Tyagi. Thereafter, cross-FIRs were registered at the instance of both the petitioners since they were also stated to have suffered the injuries during the scuffle.

¶17

The present petitions are filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 25.04.2024, with the intervention of wellwishers and respectable members of the society, on their own free will without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. In terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed that they will approach and appear before this Court seeking quashing of the

¶18

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024 Page 2 of 7

¶19

¶20

present cross-FIRs.

¶21

The complainants in the present cross-FIRs are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer (‘ IO ’). They state that they have settled all their disputes amicably and have apologized for their behaviour. They wish to live their life peacefully and harmoniously in future and do not have any objection if the proceedings arising out of the present cross-FIRs are quashed.

¶22

Offences under Sections 323/341/506 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Section 308 of the IPC are non-compoundable. 9. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶23

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

¶24

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶27

¶28

have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶29

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶30

(i) ends of justice, or

¶31

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶32

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶33

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶34

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶35

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

¶36

(emphasis supplied)

¶37

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :-

¶38

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

¶39

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

¶42

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶43

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.

¶44

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶45

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶46

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶47

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶48

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶49

Page 5 of 7

¶50

¶51

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶52

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶53

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶54

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶55

(emphasis supplied)

¶56

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

¶57

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheets have already been filed in the case arising out of the present cross-FIRs, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

¶58

CRL.M.C. 5377/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5412/2024

¶59

Page 6 of 7

¶60

¶61

In view of the above, cross-FIR Nos. 338/2018 and 489/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- by the petitioners in each petition, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶62