The Delhi High Court in the case Sachin @ Joginder Singh v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors observed and has directed the accused to plant 10 trees each of indigenous variety in the vicinity of their residence, in consultation with the Investigating Officer. Thus, the court quashed the FIR related to an altercation.
The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh in the case observed and has asked the IO for getting in touch with the concerned Horticulture Department of the MCD and indicate the area, where the trees are to be planted and that the trees need not be in one cluster but can be in parks, boundary walls etc, wherever the concerned department deems it fit and proper.
The court stated that the plantation process shall be carried within the period of 4 weeks.
In the present case, the FIR was registered under section 308, section 452, section 341, section 506, section 323, section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the court quashed the same after the parties compromised the matter.
The court observed that it has been alleged in the FIR that the group of men were causing a disturbance outside the complainant’s jhuggi. Therefore, when he requested them to refrain from making noise, they initiated an argument and subsequently, the accused returned with a stick and struck both the complainant and his wife on their heads and that the complainant’s brother-in-law intervened to stop them but was also subjected to multiple blows, as per the complaint.
It has also been stated by the complainant and the victims that they do not wish to prosecute the FIR any further and want to put a quietus to the entire matter. Therefore, the court stated that this court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any further, the court quashed the plea.
The court in the case also stated that the police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the parties and useful time of the police, which could have been utilised for important matters and the same has been misdirected towards this case.
Further, the petitioner in the plea stated that it belons to the poor strata of society. Hence, I refrain from imposing costs on the petitioners. Thus, the said court is of the view that the petitioners must do some social good,” said the court.
Therefore, the court asked the petitioners to plant 10 trees each and further directed them to look after the trees for next 10 years.
The court in its order passed on May 29, 2023 stated that the learned APP appearing for the State shall be informed with regard to each and every step in this regard and the above planting of trees shall be completed within the period of 4 weeks.
Further, the court in its order stated that after the initial planting of trees, the parties shall file a compliance report. Thus, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 shall file a status report every 1 year for 10 years giving the status of trees planted along with photographs.
Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR.