Full Text
Translation output
$-13 & 14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) t CRL.M.C. 3444/2010 &Crl. M.A. Nos. 17007/2010 &
Crl.M.A.No. 17853/2011 SRIPAL SMORKHIA &ORS. Petitioners
Through; Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
Crl.M.A.No. 17853/2011 SRIPAL SMORKHIA &ORS. Petitioners
Through; Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
STAn: & ORS.
Through:
Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas Mr. K.N. Aggarwal, complainant in person
(ii) + CRL.M.t. 3600/2010 &Crl.
M.A. No. 17514/2010
PRIYA SIIANKAR DASGUPTA Petitioner
Through; Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate STAIR & ORS.
»/« CrlM.C. No. 3444/2010 Crl. M.C. No. 3600/2010
Through:
Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vikas Mr. K.N. Aggarwal, complainant in person
(ii) + CRL.M.t. 3600/2010 &Crl.
M.A. No. 17514/2010
PRIYA SIIANKAR DASGUPTA Petitioner
Through; Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate STAIR & ORS.
»/« CrlM.C. No. 3444/2010 Crl. M.C. No. 3600/2010
VERSUS
Through;
Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondeni-
State with SI Vikas Mr. K.N. Aggarwal, complainant in person
Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondeni-
State with SI Vikas Mr. K.N. Aggarwal, complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
19.12.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing ofcharge-sheet filed
Page 1 2013:DHC:6863 in FIR No. 494/2004, for the offence under Sections 120B/409/420/
468/471 ofthe IPG, registered at police station Gonnaught Place, New Delhi is sought on merits. However, during the pendency ofthis petition, both sides had entered into a Memorandum of IJnderstandmg on 27 November, 2011 and in joint application Grl.
M.A. No. 17853/2011 (m
19.12.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing ofcharge-sheet filed
Page 1 2013:DHC:6863 in FIR No. 494/2004, for the offence under Sections 120B/409/420/
468/471 ofthe IPG, registered at police station Gonnaught Place, New Delhi is sought on merits. However, during the pendency ofthis petition, both sides had entered into a Memorandum of IJnderstandmg on 27 November, 2011 and in joint application Grl.
M.A. No. 17853/2011 (m
GRI..M.G. 3444/2010) has been filed on the strength of aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding to seek quashing ofFIR in question and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
It is submitted by both sides that the subject matter of the above captioned two petitions pertain to the aforesaid FIR, quashing ofwhich is sought on identical ground, therefore at their request, both these petitions are heard together and are disposed ofby this common order.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that trial in this FIR case has not yet begun and further submits that respondent / complaint of FIR in question is present in the Gourt and he has been identified to be so by SI Vikas, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Respondent/ complainant- Mr. K.N.Aggarwal, present in the Gourt affirms contents of joint application Grl.
M.A. No. 17853/2011 filed along with Memorandum of Understanding on 27'^ November, 2011
(Annexure A-1) and submits that the settlement reached with petitioners has been fully acted upon, as the recovery, which is the subject matter of civil dispute has been made and now, no dispute with petitioners in these two petitions survives and so, proceedings arising out of the MR in question bebrought to anend.
Crl.M.C. No. 3444/2010 2 Crl M.C. No. 3600/2010
€)
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like theinstant one, by observing asunder:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated."
Applying the afore-noted dictum to the instant case, this Court finds that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question would be an exercise in futility, as inter se dispute amongst the parties stands "mutually and amicably settled in terms of Memorandum of
Understanding on 27* November, 2011 and it has been fully acted upon.
Consequentially, these petitions are allowed and FIR NO. 494/2004, for the offences under Sections 120-B/409/420/468/471 ofthe
IPC, registered at police station Connaught Place, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners subject to cost of ?10,000/- each to be deposited [byfive petitioners in Crl. M.C.
No. 3444/2010 and one petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3600/2010] with
Prime Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks from today and receipt
CrlM.C. No. 3444/2010 ^ regarding deposit of costs beplaced onrecord within a week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
DECEMBER 19, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Crl.M.C. No. 3444/2010 p 4
Memorandum of Understanding to seek quashing ofFIR in question and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
It is submitted by both sides that the subject matter of the above captioned two petitions pertain to the aforesaid FIR, quashing ofwhich is sought on identical ground, therefore at their request, both these petitions are heard together and are disposed ofby this common order.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that trial in this FIR case has not yet begun and further submits that respondent / complaint of FIR in question is present in the Gourt and he has been identified to be so by SI Vikas, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Respondent/ complainant- Mr. K.N.Aggarwal, present in the Gourt affirms contents of joint application Grl.
M.A. No. 17853/2011 filed along with Memorandum of Understanding on 27'^ November, 2011
(Annexure A-1) and submits that the settlement reached with petitioners has been fully acted upon, as the recovery, which is the subject matter of civil dispute has been made and now, no dispute with petitioners in these two petitions survives and so, proceedings arising out of the MR in question bebrought to anend.
Crl.M.C. No. 3444/2010 2 Crl M.C. No. 3600/2010
€)
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like theinstant one, by observing asunder:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework ofits inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated."
Applying the afore-noted dictum to the instant case, this Court finds that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question would be an exercise in futility, as inter se dispute amongst the parties stands "mutually and amicably settled in terms of Memorandum of
Understanding on 27* November, 2011 and it has been fully acted upon.
Consequentially, these petitions are allowed and FIR NO. 494/2004, for the offences under Sections 120-B/409/420/468/471 ofthe
IPC, registered at police station Connaught Place, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners subject to cost of ?10,000/- each to be deposited [byfive petitioners in Crl. M.C.
No. 3444/2010 and one petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3600/2010] with
Prime Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks from today and receipt
CrlM.C. No. 3444/2010 ^ regarding deposit of costs beplaced onrecord within a week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
DECEMBER 19, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Crl.M.C. No. 3444/2010 p 4
JUDGMENT