Full Text
Translation output
\.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: January 16, 2015 rRT .M.C. 2001/2012
VIJAY KOTHA
STATE & ANR Petitioner
Through; In person
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: January 16, 2015 rRT .M.C. 2001/2012
VIJAY KOTHA
STATE & ANR Petitioner
Through; In person
VERSUS
Through; ....Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Megh Ram
Mr. Udit Sh&rma and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person
Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Megh Ram
Mr. Udit Sh&rma and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR.TUDGMENT (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.156/2011, under Section 498-A of IPC registered at police station Chitranjan, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Settlement Agreement of IS^'^ December, 2014 arrived at between the parties and the fact that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together pursuant to aforesaid Settlement Agreement.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the
Settlement Agreement of December, 2014 arrived at between the parties. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the matrimonial dispute, which is the subject matter of this FIR, now stands
CRLMC. 2001/2012 ~ Page 1
2015:DHC:10592 settled in terms ofthe SettlementAgreement of 15*^ December, 2014 and she is living together happily with petitioner-husband pursuant to aforesaid Settlement Agreement.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Settlement
Agreement and submits that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality betweenthe parties, 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 ofamicable resolution ofdisputes mcases like theinstant one, by observing asunder:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to givefull effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to thefact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, itdoes so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminalproceedings will be an exercise in futility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties isput to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor.
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.156/2011, under
Quashing of FIR No.156/2011, under Section 498-A of IPC registered at police station Chitranjan, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Settlement Agreement of IS^'^ December, 2014 arrived at between the parties and the fact that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together pursuant to aforesaid Settlement Agreement.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record the
Settlement Agreement of December, 2014 arrived at between the parties. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the matrimonial dispute, which is the subject matter of this FIR, now stands
CRLMC. 2001/2012 ~ Page 1
2015:DHC:10592 settled in terms ofthe SettlementAgreement of 15*^ December, 2014 and she is living together happily with petitioner-husband pursuant to aforesaid Settlement Agreement.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Settlement
Agreement and submits that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality betweenthe parties, 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 ofamicable resolution ofdisputes mcases like theinstant one, by observing asunder:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to givefull effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to thefact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, itdoes so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminalproceedings will be an exercise in futility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties isput to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor.
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.156/2011, under
CRL.M.C. 2001/2012 2
. ( Section 498-A of/PC registered at police station Chitranjan, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner.
However, it is made clear that ifthe marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner-husband again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand inher wayto haverecourse to law.
This petition isaccordingly disposed of JANUARY 16, 2015
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
. ( Section 498-A of/PC registered at police station Chitranjan, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner.
However, it is made clear that ifthe marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner-husband again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand inher wayto haverecourse to law.
This petition isaccordingly disposed of JANUARY 16, 2015
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRL.M.C. 2001/2012 Page 3
JUDGMENT