Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 3199/2012 B B TRIVEDI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocates with petitioner No.1
Through:
(i) CRL.M.C. 3199/2012 B B TRIVEDI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocates with petitioner No.1
Through:
VERSUS
SANJAY SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2-
State with SI Ramvir Singh Respondent No.1 in person
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1686/2012 ANURAG DUBEY ..... Petitioner
Through: In person
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2-
State with SI Ramvir Singh Respondent No.1 in person
(ii) CRL.M.C. 1686/2012 ANURAG DUBEY ..... Petitioner
Through: In person
VERSUS
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with SI Ramvir Singh
Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State with SI Ramvir Singh
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
/o 27.11.2013 Crl.M.A.16422/2012 (Exemption) in Crl.M.C.3199/2012
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
/o 27.11.2013 Crl.M.A.16422/2012 (Exemption) in Crl.M.C.3199/2012
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.C.3199/2012 &
CRL. M.C.1686/2012 & Crl.M.A. 16968/2012 (for impleadment)
Quashing of FIR No.216/2007 under Sections 452/323/3411506/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi, was initially sought on
CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:6790
• merits, but learned counsel for petitioner [in Crl.MC.3199/2012] and petitioner [in Crl.M C.1686/2012] submit that the settlement arrived at between the parties as contained in the order of 15th July, 2013 in CS
(OS) No.555/2011 titled R.D. Dixit (Rameshwar Dayal Dixit) v. Sanjay
Sharma & Anr. of a coordinate Bench of this Court is acceptable to them and they shall strictly abide by the terms and conditions of the said settlement.
Respondent-complainant m the above-captioned two petitions submits that subject to petitioners placing on record an undertaking by way of affidavit within a week to the effect that they shall be strictly abide by the settlement as contained in the order of 15th July, 2013, the proceedings arising out ofFIR in question be brought to an end.
At this stage, Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri, Advocate, has placed on record his vakalatnama/power of attorney on behalf of petitioner No.1 and submits that the vakalatnamalpower of attorney on behalf of petitioner No.2 would be also filed and states that the aforesaid requisite undertaking shall be placed on record.
Let it be so done.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303, A'Pex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"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 the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and
CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2~12 Page2
• the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework 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 of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
C~nsidering that the landlord-tenant dispute, which is the subject matter of the FIR in question, now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties in terms of aforesaid order of 15th July, 2013, and as the parties undertake to strictly abide by the settlement, therefore, I find that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the above-captioned two petitions are allowed and
FIR No.216/2007 under Sections 452/323/341/506/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom is quashed qua petitioners-accused subject to petitioners of above-captioned two petitions placing on record their undertakings by way of affidavit within a week to the effect that they shall strictly abide by the settlement as contained in the aforesaid order of 15th July, 2013.
The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 s CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2012
~ (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page3 \\
Quashing of FIR No.216/2007 under Sections 452/323/3411506/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi, was initially sought on
CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:6790
• merits, but learned counsel for petitioner [in Crl.MC.3199/2012] and petitioner [in Crl.M C.1686/2012] submit that the settlement arrived at between the parties as contained in the order of 15th July, 2013 in CS
(OS) No.555/2011 titled R.D. Dixit (Rameshwar Dayal Dixit) v. Sanjay
Sharma & Anr. of a coordinate Bench of this Court is acceptable to them and they shall strictly abide by the terms and conditions of the said settlement.
Respondent-complainant m the above-captioned two petitions submits that subject to petitioners placing on record an undertaking by way of affidavit within a week to the effect that they shall be strictly abide by the settlement as contained in the order of 15th July, 2013, the proceedings arising out ofFIR in question be brought to an end.
At this stage, Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri, Advocate, has placed on record his vakalatnama/power of attorney on behalf of petitioner No.1 and submits that the vakalatnamalpower of attorney on behalf of petitioner No.2 would be also filed and states that the aforesaid requisite undertaking shall be placed on record.
Let it be so done.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303, A'Pex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"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 the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and
CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2~12 Page2
• the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework 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 of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
C~nsidering that the landlord-tenant dispute, which is the subject matter of the FIR in question, now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties in terms of aforesaid order of 15th July, 2013, and as the parties undertake to strictly abide by the settlement, therefore, I find that continuance ofproceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the above-captioned two petitions are allowed and
FIR No.216/2007 under Sections 452/323/341/506/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom is quashed qua petitioners-accused subject to petitioners of above-captioned two petitions placing on record their undertakings by way of affidavit within a week to the effect that they shall strictly abide by the settlement as contained in the aforesaid order of 15th July, 2013.
The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 s CRL.MCs.3199 & 1686 of2012
~ (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page3 \\
JUDGMENT