Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 107/2015 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
CRL.M.C. 107/2015 & Crl.M.As.471-72/2015
DINESH CHAND SINGHAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate
DINESH CHAND SINGHAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..Respondents
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vinod Mr. P.M. Bhatt, Advocate, with respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vinod Mr. P.M. Bhatt, Advocate, with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.141/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Pahar Ganj, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement/Agreement of 24th July, 2013 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2).
Notice.
Mr. Praveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. P.M. Bhatt, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
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
2015:DHC:317
Quashing of FIR No.141/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Pahar Ganj, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement/Agreement of 24th July, 2013 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2).
Notice.
Mr. Praveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. P.M. Bhatt, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
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
2015:DHC:317
CRL.M.C. 107/2015 Page 2 as well as by SI Vinod 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/Agreement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the balance settled amount of `1.5 lac in cash and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 4th July, 2014. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid
Settlement/Agreement and of her affidavit of 18th December, 2014 supporting this petition 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.”
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, CRL.M.C. 107/2015 Page 3 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.141/2013, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Pahar Ganj, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015 s
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Settlement/Agreement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the balance settled amount of `1.5 lac in cash and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 4th July, 2014. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid
Settlement/Agreement and of her affidavit of 18th December, 2014 supporting this petition 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.”
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, CRL.M.C. 107/2015 Page 3 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.141/2013, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Pahar Ganj, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015 s