Full Text
Translation output
$-32 & 36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4841/2013 & CH. M.A. Nos.17432-33/2013
SARDAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. HemanVSingh, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 4841/2013 & CH. M.A. Nos.17432-33/2013
SARDAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. HemanVSingh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh 6upta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for respondent No.2
4*
Through: Mr. Mukesh 6upta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for respondent No.2
4*
CRILM.C. 4845/2013&Crl. M.A. No's.17440-41/2013
KARNAIL SINGH & ORS.
. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate
KARNAIL SINGH & ORS.
. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
- " Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. I -State with Sl Rampal Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2
- " Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. I -State with Sl Rampal Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
20.11.2013 On 25 1h June, 2006, a quarrel had taken place between the parties pertaining to management and affairs of Shri Guru Singh Sabha
CH. M.0 No. 484112013 Page 1 CH. M.0 No. 484512013
2013:DHC:7446 Gurudwara at Raghubir Nagar,New Delhi which culminated into registration of FIR No. 626/2006, under Sections 147/148/ 149/ 323/
308/506/34 at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Pursuant to registration of the aforesaid FIR, a criminal complaint being CC NO. 11303/1/9 Sardar Singh Vs. Karnail Singh & ors was also got filed by one of the parties.
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of the afore-noted
FIR [in Crl. M.C. No. 4841/2013] and in the above captioned second petition, quashing of the afore-noted complaint [in Crl. M.C.
No.4845/2013] is sought by petitioners. Since the subject matter of these two petitions pertains to the incident of 25 1h
June, 2006, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. '
Counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are neighbours and are sevadars at Shri Guru
Singh Sabha Gurudwara at Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 25 h June, 2006 amongst them and that now the misunderstanding has been cleared and inter se dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties.
Notice.
Ave Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State accepts notice and submits that the Shri Pritain Singh was the complainant of FIR in question, who has met natural death and his son- Joginder Singh is present in the Court. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent- State further submits that and on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Sardar Singh has been identified
CH. M-C No. 484112013 Page 2 CH M.0 No. 484512013
-,-,3 as the complainant of CC No. 11303/1/9 and that the remaining petitioners are also present in the Court.
Mr. Hemant Singh & Mr. Rajat Junjea, Advocates, accept notice of the above captioned petitions on behalf of parties and they submit that
Joginder Singh, son of injured- Shri Pritam Singh & another injured-
Sardar Singh are present in the Court and they haVe instructions on their behalf to confirm before this Court that the subject matter of these two petitions has been amicably settled. It is also submitted that one- Roshan
Singh was also injured in the incident in question. Injured-Sardar Singh submits that he has instructions from injured-Ros^an Singh to confirm factum of settlement with petitioners-accused in these matters. The complainant-party of FIR and complaint in question are present in the
Court and they affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-noted FIRs in question.
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 ofJustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation Of criminal proceedings would tantan, fount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compr4mise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the afji'rmative, the High
CH. M.0 No. 484112013 Page 3 I Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. "
Considering the fact that the subject matter of the above captioned petitions pertain to a election dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who are said to be neighbours, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question as well as the criminal complaint in question, to.bring about cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 626/2006, under Sections 147/148/ 149/ 323/
308/ 506/34 at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi [in Crl. M.C. NO. 4841/2013] and CC No. 11 303/l/9 Sardar Singh Vs. Karnail Singh & ors
[in CH. M.C. No.4845/2013] are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject to petitioners- Sardar Singh & Dalbir Singh(in Crl. M.C. NO. 4841/2013) and petitioners- Karnail Singh & Jung Singh (in CH. M.C.
No. 4845/2013) depositing cost of 75,0001- each with the Prime
Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks. Receipts of deposit of cost be placed on record within a week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
I* (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2013 r CH. M-C No. 484112013 Page 4
20.11.2013 On 25 1h June, 2006, a quarrel had taken place between the parties pertaining to management and affairs of Shri Guru Singh Sabha
CH. M.0 No. 484112013 Page 1 CH. M.0 No. 484512013
2013:DHC:7446 Gurudwara at Raghubir Nagar,New Delhi which culminated into registration of FIR No. 626/2006, under Sections 147/148/ 149/ 323/
308/506/34 at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Pursuant to registration of the aforesaid FIR, a criminal complaint being CC NO. 11303/1/9 Sardar Singh Vs. Karnail Singh & ors was also got filed by one of the parties.
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of the afore-noted
FIR [in Crl. M.C. No. 4841/2013] and in the above captioned second petition, quashing of the afore-noted complaint [in Crl. M.C.
No.4845/2013] is sought by petitioners. Since the subject matter of these two petitions pertains to the incident of 25 1h
June, 2006, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. '
Counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are neighbours and are sevadars at Shri Guru
Singh Sabha Gurudwara at Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 25 h June, 2006 amongst them and that now the misunderstanding has been cleared and inter se dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties.
Notice.
Ave Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State accepts notice and submits that the Shri Pritain Singh was the complainant of FIR in question, who has met natural death and his son- Joginder Singh is present in the Court. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent- State further submits that and on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Sardar Singh has been identified
CH. M-C No. 484112013 Page 2 CH M.0 No. 484512013
-,-,3 as the complainant of CC No. 11303/1/9 and that the remaining petitioners are also present in the Court.
Mr. Hemant Singh & Mr. Rajat Junjea, Advocates, accept notice of the above captioned petitions on behalf of parties and they submit that
Joginder Singh, son of injured- Shri Pritam Singh & another injured-
Sardar Singh are present in the Court and they haVe instructions on their behalf to confirm before this Court that the subject matter of these two petitions has been amicably settled. It is also submitted that one- Roshan
Singh was also injured in the incident in question. Injured-Sardar Singh submits that he has instructions from injured-Ros^an Singh to confirm factum of settlement with petitioners-accused in these matters. The complainant-party of FIR and complaint in question are present in the
Court and they affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-noted FIRs in question.
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 ofJustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation Of criminal proceedings would tantan, fount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compr4mise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the afji'rmative, the High
CH. M.0 No. 484112013 Page 3 I Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. "
Considering the fact that the subject matter of the above captioned petitions pertain to a election dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who are said to be neighbours, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question as well as the criminal complaint in question, to.bring about cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 626/2006, under Sections 147/148/ 149/ 323/
308/ 506/34 at police station Rajouri Garden, Delhi [in Crl. M.C. NO. 4841/2013] and CC No. 11 303/l/9 Sardar Singh Vs. Karnail Singh & ors
[in CH. M.C. No.4845/2013] are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject to petitioners- Sardar Singh & Dalbir Singh(in Crl. M.C. NO. 4841/2013) and petitioners- Karnail Singh & Jung Singh (in CH. M.C.
No. 4845/2013) depositing cost of 75,0001- each with the Prime
Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks. Receipts of deposit of cost be placed on record within a week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
I* (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 20, 2013 r CH. M-C No. 484112013 Page 4
JUDGMENT