IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
Crl. M.C. No. 6667-10/2006 
Date of Decision: 2nd January, 2008 
Braham Prakash and Ors. 
.....Petitioners 
Through Mr. B.R. Handa, Senior Advocate 
with Ms. Hiteshi Arora 
versus 
The State of NCT of Delhi ....Respondent 
Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. 
P.K.BHASIN, J: 
1. The petitioners, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 are praying for quashing of the FIR no. 95/2006 for the 
offence under Section 308/34 of Indian Penal Code ( I.P.C. in short) registered at 
Police Station Kanjhawala on 13.07.2006. 
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 13.07.2006 at about 1.45 p.m. 
petitioners no. 1-3 gave beatings to one Narender, petitioner no.4 herein, and in 
respect of that incident FIR under Section 308/34 I.P.C. was registered on the basis 
of the statement of the injured Narender who named Braham Prakash, petitioner 
no. 1, and his two sons, petitioners no. 2 and 3 herein, as the assailants. 
3. During the pendency of the investigation, both the parties who are related to 
each other, with the intervention of the respectable persons of their village resolved 
their disputes and arrived at an amicable settlement and in view of the compromise 
this joint petition was filed by the accused and the injured- complainant for 
quashing of the above-referred FIR. Copy of the compromise deed signed by both 
the parties has also been placed on record. 
4. Notice of the petition was given to the State. Learned APP for the State opposed 
quashing of the FIR on the ground that offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is of grave
nature and the same is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and so FIR 
should not be quashed. In reply to this objection learned senior counsel for the 
petitioners had submitted that this Court has been quashing cases even in respect of 
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. where the parties had reported settlement. 
5. It is now well settled that even in respect of those offences which are not 
compoundable FIRs/criminal proceedings can be quashed if the Court while 
dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. feels that it would secure the ends 
of justice and continuation of the investigation/criminal trial would amount to 
abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to one judgment 
of the Hon ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 
, AIR 2003 SC 1386 where it has been so held. Further, in a recent case decided by 
this Court reported as Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 6621- 
24/2006 and in an earlier judgment also of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. The 
State and Anr. , 1998 Cri.l.J. 3780, the proceedings pending in the Court even for 
the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. were quashed in view of the 
compromise between the parties. So, since both the parties in the present case are 
related to each other and are neighbours also and they have settled their disputes 
for bringing about peace and harmony in their families no fruitful purpose would 
be served if the investigation against the accused persons goes on and the relief of 
quashing of the FIR in these circumstances cannot be refused just because Section 
308 I.P.C. is involved in the case. 
6. In view of the foregoing and considering the fact that this Court itself in its 
earlier decisions, as noted above, has been allowing petitions for quashing of the 
FIRs on the basis of the settlement between the parties even in cases where 
allegations of serious nature inviting punishment upto imprisonment for life were 
levelled against the accused, I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently FIR 
no. 95/2006 registered at Police Station Khanjhawala on 13-07-2006 is hereby 
quashed. 
Sd/- 
P.K.BHASIN,J

Braham prakash vs. state

  • 1.
    IN THE HIGHCOURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Crl. M.C. No. 6667-10/2006 Date of Decision: 2nd January, 2008 Braham Prakash and Ors. .....Petitioners Through Mr. B.R. Handa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hiteshi Arora versus The State of NCT of Delhi ....Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. P.K.BHASIN, J: 1. The petitioners, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are praying for quashing of the FIR no. 95/2006 for the offence under Section 308/34 of Indian Penal Code ( I.P.C. in short) registered at Police Station Kanjhawala on 13.07.2006. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 13.07.2006 at about 1.45 p.m. petitioners no. 1-3 gave beatings to one Narender, petitioner no.4 herein, and in respect of that incident FIR under Section 308/34 I.P.C. was registered on the basis of the statement of the injured Narender who named Braham Prakash, petitioner no. 1, and his two sons, petitioners no. 2 and 3 herein, as the assailants. 3. During the pendency of the investigation, both the parties who are related to each other, with the intervention of the respectable persons of their village resolved their disputes and arrived at an amicable settlement and in view of the compromise this joint petition was filed by the accused and the injured- complainant for quashing of the above-referred FIR. Copy of the compromise deed signed by both the parties has also been placed on record. 4. Notice of the petition was given to the State. Learned APP for the State opposed quashing of the FIR on the ground that offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is of grave
  • 2.
    nature and thesame is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and so FIR should not be quashed. In reply to this objection learned senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that this Court has been quashing cases even in respect of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. where the parties had reported settlement. 5. It is now well settled that even in respect of those offences which are not compoundable FIRs/criminal proceedings can be quashed if the Court while dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. feels that it would secure the ends of justice and continuation of the investigation/criminal trial would amount to abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to one judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. , AIR 2003 SC 1386 where it has been so held. Further, in a recent case decided by this Court reported as Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 6621- 24/2006 and in an earlier judgment also of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. The State and Anr. , 1998 Cri.l.J. 3780, the proceedings pending in the Court even for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. were quashed in view of the compromise between the parties. So, since both the parties in the present case are related to each other and are neighbours also and they have settled their disputes for bringing about peace and harmony in their families no fruitful purpose would be served if the investigation against the accused persons goes on and the relief of quashing of the FIR in these circumstances cannot be refused just because Section 308 I.P.C. is involved in the case. 6. In view of the foregoing and considering the fact that this Court itself in its earlier decisions, as noted above, has been allowing petitions for quashing of the FIRs on the basis of the settlement between the parties even in cases where allegations of serious nature inviting punishment upto imprisonment for life were levelled against the accused, I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently FIR no. 95/2006 registered at Police Station Khanjhawala on 13-07-2006 is hereby quashed. Sd/- P.K.BHASIN,J