Full Text
Translation output
$-33 & 47 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 4503/2013
SALEEM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P. Luthra, Mr. J. Kawatra and Mr. Himanshu Luthra, Advocates
SALEEM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P. Luthra, Mr. J. Kawatra and Mr. Himanshu Luthra, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
(ii)
Respondents
Through; Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Arvind Respondent No.2 in person
(ii)
Respondents
Through; Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Arvind Respondent No.2 in person
CRL.M.C. 4521/2013
MOHD. USMAN «& ORS.
Through:
MOHD. USMAN «& ORS.
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
Through:
Petitioners Mr. R.P. Luthra, Mr. J. Kawatra and Mr. Himanshu Luthra, Advocates
Respondents Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Arvind Respondent No.2 in person
Through:
Petitioners Mr. R.P. Luthra, Mr. J. Kawatra and Mr. Himanshu Luthra, Advocates
Respondents Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Arvind Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
28.10.2013 Crl.M.A.16124 & 16176/2013 rExemption)
Allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
Crl.M.Cs.4503 & 4521 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7440
CrI. M.C. No.4503/2ni.l CrLM.C.No. 4521/201^ In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 265/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 ofthe/PC [in Crl. M.C.4503/2013] and FIR No.266/2012 under Sections 308/452/323/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl.
28.10.2013 Crl.M.A.16124 & 16176/2013 rExemption)
Allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
Crl.M.Cs.4503 & 4521 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7440
CrI. M.C. No.4503/2ni.l CrLM.C.No. 4521/201^ In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 265/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 ofthe/PC [in Crl. M.C.4503/2013] and FIR No.266/2012 under Sections 308/452/323/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl.
M.C.4521/2013] both registered at police station Welcome, Delhi, is sought by petitioners.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, submits that the above noted two petitions pertain to the incident of 21®' August, 2012 and two cross FIRs have been registered by the parties.
In the light of above, with the consent of counsel for parties, the above-captioned two 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 belong to one family and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 21®' August, 2012 amongst them and it culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs and that now with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding has been cleared and inter sedispute has been amicably resolved by the parties.
LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Islam S/o Md.
Fazal has been identified as the first mformant of FIR No.265/2012 and
Salim Akhtar S/o Ahmed Fazal, as the first-informant of FIR NO. 266/2012 by SI Arvind. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
CrlMCs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page 2 also submits that the remaining petitioners - Mohd Usman, Mohd.
Rizwan, Mohd. Furkan, Ajam and Mohd. Fazal were injured in the quarrel, which took place on 22"*^ August, 2012 due to misunderstanding between the parties, which stands now cleared. The above named injured persons have been soidentified bySIArvind.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners-accused person have clean antecedents and the parties are related to each other and the misunderstanding between the parties has now been cleared, therefore, continuance ofproceedings arising out the aforesaid two cross
FIRswould serve no purpose.
Islam and Salim Akhtar, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs and aforesaid injured persons are present in the Court and they submit that amicable resolution of dispute has been reached with the intervention of elders of the family and now no misunderstanding survives amongst the parties. The parties present in the Court also affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-notedFIRs in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences 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 the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of thefact that such offences have not
Crl.M.Cs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page 3 been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint orFIR ifitis satisfied that on theface ofsuch 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. "
Considering the factthatthe subject matter of the afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who belong to the same family, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 265/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 of the
IPC [in Crl. M.C.4503/2013] and FIR No.266/2012 under Sections
308/452/323/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C.4521/2013] both registered at police station Welcome, Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject to consolidated cost of ^10,000/- per petition to be deposited within two weeks from today with Prime Minister's Relief
Fundand receipt thereofbe placed on record within one week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of
Dasti.
OCTOBER 28,2013 s (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CrlM.Cs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page4
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, submits that the above noted two petitions pertain to the incident of 21®' August, 2012 and two cross FIRs have been registered by the parties.
In the light of above, with the consent of counsel for parties, the above-captioned two 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 belong to one family and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 21®' August, 2012 amongst them and it culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs and that now with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding has been cleared and inter sedispute has been amicably resolved by the parties.
LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Islam S/o Md.
Fazal has been identified as the first mformant of FIR No.265/2012 and
Salim Akhtar S/o Ahmed Fazal, as the first-informant of FIR NO. 266/2012 by SI Arvind. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
CrlMCs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page 2 also submits that the remaining petitioners - Mohd Usman, Mohd.
Rizwan, Mohd. Furkan, Ajam and Mohd. Fazal were injured in the quarrel, which took place on 22"*^ August, 2012 due to misunderstanding between the parties, which stands now cleared. The above named injured persons have been soidentified bySIArvind.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners-accused person have clean antecedents and the parties are related to each other and the misunderstanding between the parties has now been cleared, therefore, continuance ofproceedings arising out the aforesaid two cross
FIRswould serve no purpose.
Islam and Salim Akhtar, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs and aforesaid injured persons are present in the Court and they submit that amicable resolution of dispute has been reached with the intervention of elders of the family and now no misunderstanding survives amongst the parties. The parties present in the Court also affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-notedFIRs in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences 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 the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of thefact that such offences have not
Crl.M.Cs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page 3 been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint orFIR ifitis satisfied that on theface ofsuch 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. "
Considering the factthatthe subject matter of the afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who belong to the same family, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 265/2012 under Sections 308/323/34 of the
IPC [in Crl. M.C.4503/2013] and FIR No.266/2012 under Sections
308/452/323/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C.4521/2013] both registered at police station Welcome, Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject to consolidated cost of ^10,000/- per petition to be deposited within two weeks from today with Prime Minister's Relief
Fundand receipt thereofbe placed on record within one week thereafter.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of
Dasti.
OCTOBER 28,2013 s (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CrlM.Cs.4503 &4521 of2013 Page4
JUDGMENT