Abdul Hannan@Hannan Chaudhary vs. The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4936 OF 2024 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO. 15021/2024)

... APPELLANT(S)

ABDUL HANNAN@HANNAN CHAUDHARY & ORS.

Versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) 2042/2024 wherein the appellants' Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed and their prayer seeking quashing of the FIR No. SONIA BHASIN 86/2024 under Section 308 and 34 of Date: 2024.12.11

Indian Penal Code, 18601 was rejected.

• 3. The brief facts of the matter are that the appellants (accused persons) and respondents no. 2-4 (complainants) are young university students who were admittedly known to each other prior to the date of alleged incident. It was alleged that on 01.03.2024, Adil Khan, i.e. respondent no. 2 had gone to Jamia University to meet his friends, Zafar and Saquib, i.e. respondent no. 3 and 4 and, at around 8.00 pm, while they were leaving, the appellants came to them with wooden sticks and hockey sticks and started beating the respondents. As a result of the said scuffle, the respondents sustained injuries and subsequently, the abovementioned FIR No. 86/2024 was lodged by respondent no. 2 on 02.03.2024.
• 4. However, subsequent to the registration of FIR, due to the intervention of common

<span id="page-1-0"></span>¹ In short, "IPC"

friends, well-wishers and respectable persons, the appellants and respondents no. 2 to 4, have arrived at an amicable settlement and executed a Memorandum of Understanding2 dated 24.05.2024 amongst all the parties wherein the said respondents admitted that they have no grievance against the appellants and do not want to pursue the said FIR any further. It was also stated in the MoU that the appellants have paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents no. 2 to 4 as full and final settlement on account of medical expenses and damage of mobile phone.

5. Accordingly, the appellants approached the High Court for quashing of FIR No. 86/2024 and consequential proceedings on the basis of abovementioned MoU. The High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, vide the impugned order, observed that when a non-compoundable serious offence

<span id="page-2-0"></span>² In short, "MoU"

is settled through settlement for monetary payment, it may create an impression that such offences can be compounded simply by paying money through a settlement agreement as a matter of right. As such, the High Court refused to quash the FIR and also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each on the appellants.

• 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellants are before us.
• 7. The learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the complainants/respondents no. 2 to 4 have submitted before us that the injuries were simple and the injured persons were discharged on the same day. It was further submitted that both the parties, being very young students, have arrived at a settlement and, as such, proceedings impugned may be quashed.
• 8. However, learned ASG appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for

quashing.

• 9. We note that it was also observed in the impugned order that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. As such, it was also submitted by the appellants that the imposition of Section 308 of IPC was inappropriate and unwarranted in the facts of the case, given that it was just an altercation between two sets of students where simple injuries were received, and at best, the FIR could have attracted only Sections 323 or 324 of IPC.
• 10. As for the quashing of criminal proceedings in terms of a mutual settlement between the parties, we find it relevant here to refer to a judgment of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another3, wherein it was held as follows:-

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between

<span id="page-4-0"></span>³ (2012) 10 SCC 303

the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. 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. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."

11. Considering the law enunciated above and

the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the injuries were simple in nature and an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties wherein the respondents do not wish to pursue the proceedings any further, we find it a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The instant case falls squarely in the category where a settlement of the dispute between the parties precluded the possibility of a conviction, making the continuation of trial an exercise in futility. In this light, putting a quietus to the proceedings would also conserve further resources of the investigating agency and the judicial system by preventing them from being wasted on a case which would have little chance of success.

• 12. Therefore, we observe that given that the parties are known to each other, have amicably resolved their dispute, seek to bury the hatchet and move forward with their lives, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive. On the contrary, continuation of the proceedings would only defeat the ends of justice by jeopardizing the prospects of the Petitioners who are young students at present and should rather focus on building a bright future for themselves.
• 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.07.2024 is set

aside and the FIR No. 86/2024 against the appellants alongwith all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………………………. .J. [VIKRAM NATH]

…………………………………………………………………. .J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 02, 2024.