In a unique directive, the Delhi High Court has ordered a family to plant 50 saplings in parks as a condition for quashing a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them following a settlement between the parties.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta mandated that the accused family members must plant saplings up to three feet in height in the residential area falling under the jurisdiction of the Sultanpuri Police Station, where the FIR was originally lodged.

"Petitioners are further directed to plant 50 saplings of trees, which are upto 03 feet in height, in the local parks in the residential area within jurisdiction of P.S.: Sultanpuri, Delhi after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e., the Horticulture Department of MCD /DDA /Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through IO/SHO, P.S. Sultanpuri," the Bench directed.

The Court specified that photographs of the planted saplings, along with a report from the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer, must be submitted to it within eight weeks. Additionally, the maintenance of the saplings and trees will be the responsibility of the relevant authorities. The Court further stated that failure to comply with the tree-planting directive would result in the petitioners being liable to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA).

"The photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO / SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings / trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non compliance of directions for planting of trees, the petitioners shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority," the Court said in its Order dated May 2.

The FIR stemmed from allegations including voluntarily causing hurt, outraging the modesty of a woman, house trespass, criminal intimidation, and common intention under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant had accused her neighbors of assaulting her with bricks and iron rods, as well as molesting her inappropriately. She further alleged that her brother and father were also assaulted when they attempted to intervene.

The Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, who are neighbours, in terms of a Memorandum of Settlement dated February 15, 2024. He further submitted that Petitioners have clean past antecedents, except for another FIR between the same parties, relating to an offense under Section 506 read with S. 34 of IPC which has been amicably settled. He also pointed out that the nature of injuries is opined to be simple.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

The Court observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be quashed despite settlement. "However, distinguished from serious offences, minor incidents or offences, which don’t affect the society at large or are personal in nature, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned....in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused," it said.

Upon interaction with the parties, the Court said, "Parties being neighbours intend to put quietus to the proceedings. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties."

"..since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0191/2015 under Sections 323/354/452/506/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Sultanpuri and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed," the Court ordered, while disposing of the Petition.

Cause Title: Om Kumar & Ors v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Basant Kumar Gautam

Respondent: Advocates Kiran Bairwa (APP), Vijay Kumar, Harsh Dua

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Anoop Kumar MendirattaDelhi High Court

Sukriti Mishra