Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 489 (DEL)

Amitabh Sharma v. Stateand Another

2022-02-25

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

body2022
ORDER CRL.M.C. 3491/2021 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing/setting aside of the order on charge dated 11th October, 2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts in Criminal Case No. 13397/2018 titled State vs. Amitabh Sharma''' as well as quashing of the of FIR bearing No. 74/2017 dated 4th March 2017, under Sections 186/353/332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) registered at Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi. 2. Petitioner is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Investigating Officer W/SI Meenu Bhan, Police Station IGI Airport. Respondent no. 2 is also present in the Court and has been identified by his counsel Md. Arif and the Investigating Officer. 3. On the query made by this Court, respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that he has entered into compromise on his own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondent no. 2 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are that in the impugned FIR, it has been inter alia alleged as under: (a) On 4th March, 2017, petitioner was scheduled to travel from Delhi to Dhaka, Bangladesh via Air India Express Flight No. IX-132/04 from Terminal 3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. (b) Petitioner was allegedly in an inebriated condition and was using foul language at the check-in counter. (c) When the respondent no. 2 (who was employed as a senior officer in Air India Charters Ltd. and was working at the check-in counter at that time) intervened, petitioner allegedly abused and kicked respondent no. 2 and threatened him saying dekhlunga. (d) Accordingly, respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint against petitioner for abusing and kicking respondent no. 2 and creating hurdles in the discharge of his public duty. 5. On 4th March, 2017, medical examination of respondent no. 2/complainant as well as the Petitioner was got conducted by the Investigating Officer. Qua the respondent no. 2/complainant, the final opinion in the MLC was no injury present. Qua petitioner, the blood- alcohol content (BAC) was high. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. 6. On 5th March, 2017, petitioner was released on regular bail. 2/complainant as well as the Petitioner was got conducted by the Investigating Officer. Qua the respondent no. 2/complainant, the final opinion in the MLC was no injury present. Qua petitioner, the blood- alcohol content (BAC) was high. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. 6. On 5th March, 2017, petitioner was released on regular bail. In the Order granting bail, it was observed that petitioner had straightaway shown remorse and had volunteered to donate his one month's salary (i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/-) to any charity organization. Accordingly, petitioner donated Rs. 2,50,000/- to the NDBA National Relief Fund. 7. Thereafter, respondent no. 2/complainant submitted a letter to the respondent no. 1/police, mentioning the fact that petitioner had apologized and therefore, the complainant wishes to withdraw his complaint (i.e. the Subject Complaint). 8. On 24th March, 2017, a purported complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the office of respondent no. 2/complainant namely Air India Charters Ltd. wherein it was inter alia stated that the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent no. 2/complainant, on the basis of which respondent no. 2/complainant had withdrawn his earlier complaint against petitioner. Pertinently, no prayer or request was made seeking any action against petitioner. 9. On 19th December, 2017, despite the withdrawal of the earlier Complaint by respondent no. 2/complainant, the Investigating Officer filed a final report/Chargesheet against petitioner as against a closure report. 10. Thereafter, cognizance of the offences alleged in the Chargesheet was taken by the Trial Court and petitioner was summoned to appear before the Trial Court. 11. On 28th September, 2018, petitioner filed an Application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. 12. On 13th March, 2020, respondent no. 2/complainant appeared before the Trial Court and reiterated his stand that he has amicably settled the matter with the Accused and does not want to proceed further with the case. 13. On 11th October, 2021, without giving any reasons whatsoever and without even dealing with any of the submissions or contentions raised by petitioner in the aforesaid application seeking his discharge, the Trial Court passed the impugned order on charge in a mechanical manner and without application of judicial mind observing that prima facie offences under Sections 186/353/332 IPC are made out against the accused' and directed framing of charge against petitioner on 1st March, 2022. 14. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the Trial Court has erred in framing charge against petitioner under Section 186 of the IPC. Since Section 195(l)(a) of the Cr.P.C. bars the taking of cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC in the absence of a written complaint either by the public servant concerned (i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein) or some other public servant to whom the concerned public servant is administratively subordinate. 15. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that a withdrawn complaint and a purported complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. not even seeking any action or prosecution of petitioner cannot be said to be a valid complaint for the purposes of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 16. It is submitted that there was no valid complaint in terms of Section 195(l)(a) of the Cr.P.C. subsisting at the time when cognizance was taken by the Trial Court. Consequently, no charge could have been framed against petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 186 of the IPC. It is further submitted that no charge could have been framed against petitioner for the other alleged offences under Section 353 and 332 of the IPC. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner also placed reliance, in this regard, on para 8 of Janki Prasad Tibrewal vs. State of Bihar, (1974) SCC OnLine Pat 183. 18. It is vehemently prayed by the learned counsel that Complainant/Respondent no. 2 has given his no objection affidavit, if the present FIR and all its proceedings emanating therefrom including the complaint case and order on charge dated 11th October 2021 are quashed in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties. 19. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State submitted that there is no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. Keeping in view the fact that parties have settled the matter, no objection affidavit of Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is no opposition on behalf of the State, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. Keeping in view the fact that parties have settled the matter, no objection affidavit of Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is no opposition on behalf of the State, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, in light of Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State o f Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , order dated 11th October 2021 as well as FIR bearing No. 74/2017 dated 4th March 2017, registered at Police Station IGI Airport for offences punishable under Sections 186/353/332 of the IPC and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to deposition of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, Canara Bank Account No. 90552010165915, (IFSC Code: CNRB0019055) within a period of ten days. After payment of the aforesaid amount, receipt shall be deposited with the Investigating Officer. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. 19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.