Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4647/2013
K SWAMINATHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Satya Siddiqui, Mr. Sarfaraz
A. Siddiqui & Mr. Shailender
Kumar Mishra, Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
Standing Counsel for respondent
No.1-State & Ms. Shinjan Jain,
Advocates with SI Pradeep Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 4649/2013
RAJPUT ASHISH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Ms. Satya
Siddiqui, Mr. Sarfaraz A. Siddiqui
& Mr. Shailender Kumar Mishra,
Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional
Standing Counsel for respondent
No.1-State & Ms. Shinjan Jain,
Advocates with SI Pradeep Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Crl.M.C.No.4647/2013 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.4649/2013
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No. 78/2013,
under Sections 147/148/149/279/337/336/308/323 of the IPC and in the
above captioned second petition, FIR No. 79/2013, under Sections
147/149/323/341/395 of the IPC, both registered at police station Sarojini
st
Nagar, New Delhi is sought while relying upon Compromise Deed of 21
October, 2012 reached between the parties.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State has
drawn attention of this Court to pertinent observations of Apex Court in
‘Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.’ (2012) 10 SCC 303, which reads
as under:-
“58. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC
or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction
at all.’
After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material on record,
this Court finds that the prayer made in these petitions cannot be granted
as FIR No. 79/2013 pertains to offence under Section 395 of the IPC
which is punishable with sentence upto imprisonment for life.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that offence under Section
395 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners.
Crl.M.C.No.4647/2013 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.4649/2013
If it is so, then let petitioners argue on the point of charge before
the trial court and if trial court chooses not to put petitioners on trial for
offence under Section 395 of IPC, then petitioners are at liberty to seek
quashing of the FIRs in question.
With aforesaid observations, the above captioned two petitions are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.4647/2013 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.4649/2013