Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
BHUPENDER KUMAR UJINIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Gautam, Advocate
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Abhishek
Mr. V.M. Issar, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
JUDGMENT
Quashing of FIR No.163/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement whose terms find mention in the joint statement of petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife made before the
Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th January, 2001 in proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C..
Notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr.V.M. Issar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
2015:DHC:529
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first- informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by SI Abhishek on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 28th January,
2013. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Settlement and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- “Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between 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.” CRL.M.C. 4144/2014 Page 3 Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.163/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JANUARY 19, 2015 s