Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 4587/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
CRL.M.C. 4587/2014
M/S SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS PVT LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asgha Khan and Mr. Mohit Kumar Saxena, Advocates
M/S SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS PVT LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asgha Khan and Mr. Mohit Kumar Saxena, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vipin Kumar Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vipin Kumar Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.290/2013, under Sections 420/406/506/34 of
IPC registered at police station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed/Settlement of 24th June, 2013 (Annexure-D) and affidavit of respondent No.2.
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State has
2015:DHC:524
Quashing of FIR No.290/2013, under Sections 420/406/506/34 of
IPC registered at police station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed/Settlement of 24th June, 2013 (Annexure-D) and affidavit of respondent No.2.
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–State has
2015:DHC:524
CRL.M.C. 4587/2014 Page 2 placed on record the status report and has submitted that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so by his counsel as well as by SI Vipin
Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise Deed/Settlement and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Compromise Deed/Settlement and of his affidavit of
24th June, 2013 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid
Compromise Deed/Settlement and affidavit of respondent No.2, I find that
Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise Deed/Settlement and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Compromise Deed/Settlement and of his affidavit of
24th June, 2013 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid
Compromise Deed/Settlement and affidavit of respondent No.2, I find that
CRL.M.C. 4587/2014 Page 3 continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `50,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No.290/2013, under Sections 420/406/506/34 of IPC registered at police station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015 s
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `50,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No.290/2013, under Sections 420/406/506/34 of IPC registered at police station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015 s