Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C. 2640/2014
SANJEEV KUMAR BUDHIRAJA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Advocate
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C. 2640/2014
SANJEEV KUMAR BUDHIRAJA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan Mr. R.S. Malik and Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocates for respondents
No.2 to 5 (ii) CRL.M.C. 2619/2014 SANJEEV BHARARA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. Abnave Sharma and Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocates
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan Mr. R.S. Malik and Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocates for respondents
No.2 to 5 (ii) CRL.M.C. 2619/2014 SANJEEV BHARARA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. Abnave Sharma and Mr. Sahil Malik, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan Respondents No.2 to 4
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan Respondents No.2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
2015:DHC:305 Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 2
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
FIR No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections
452/323/336/341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of the complainant-party.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of together as they pertain to cross-FIRs which arose out of same incident.
Learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submits that the incident in question arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which now stands cleared and the Memorandum of Understanding in the form of settlement is on record alongwith affidavits of the parties and to bring cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of the
FIRs in question be brought to an end.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar and Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accept notice and submits that respondents-Sanjeev Bharara, Anil Bharara, Bhupinder Singh and
Krishan Kumar Tiwari (in Crl.M.C.2640/2014) and respondents-Sanjeev
Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Bhushan Sikka (in Crl.M.C. 2619/2014) are present in the Court and they have been identified to be complainant party in FIRs No.465/2014 & 464/2014 respectively by ASI Chander Bhan on the basis of their identity proofs.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for respondent-State submit, on instructions, that the trial of these two cross-FIRs cases has not
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 3 yet begun and the allegations of firing do not stand substantiated from the investigation conducted and that the antecedents of both the parties are clean.
Complainant-party of the aforesaid two FIRs, present in the Court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide Memorandum of Understanding of 30th April, 2014 (Annexure A-7) 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. Complainant party, present in the Court, affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and of their affidavits, placed on record in support of these petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the 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 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
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 4 Memorandum of Understanding and the affidavits of the complainant party, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the cross FIRs in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to cost of
`30,000/- in each petition to be deposited by the petitioners of both the petitions with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections 452/323/336/
341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Rajouri
Garden, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015 s
2015:DHC:305 Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 2
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
FIR No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections
452/323/336/341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of the complainant-party.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common judgment, they are being disposed of together as they pertain to cross-FIRs which arose out of same incident.
Learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submits that the incident in question arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties, which now stands cleared and the Memorandum of Understanding in the form of settlement is on record alongwith affidavits of the parties and to bring cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of the
FIRs in question be brought to an end.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar and Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accept notice and submits that respondents-Sanjeev Bharara, Anil Bharara, Bhupinder Singh and
Krishan Kumar Tiwari (in Crl.M.C.2640/2014) and respondents-Sanjeev
Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Bhushan Sikka (in Crl.M.C. 2619/2014) are present in the Court and they have been identified to be complainant party in FIRs No.465/2014 & 464/2014 respectively by ASI Chander Bhan on the basis of their identity proofs.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for respondent-State submit, on instructions, that the trial of these two cross-FIRs cases has not
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 3 yet begun and the allegations of firing do not stand substantiated from the investigation conducted and that the antecedents of both the parties are clean.
Complainant-party of the aforesaid two FIRs, present in the Court, submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide Memorandum of Understanding of 30th April, 2014 (Annexure A-7) 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. Complainant party, present in the Court, affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and of their affidavits, placed on record in support of these petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the 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 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
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 4 Memorandum of Understanding and the affidavits of the complainant party, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the cross FIRs in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to cost of
`30,000/- in each petition to be deposited by the petitioners of both the petitions with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections 452/323/336/
341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Rajouri
Garden, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015 s