Full Text
Translation output
Ty $-30 & 36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 4190/2013
NEERAJ TANWAR & ORS. Petitioners Thi'ough: Mr. Sulacha,Advocate
NEERAJ TANWAR & ORS. Petitioners Thi'ough: Mr. Sulacha,Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NOT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mukesh ^ Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
(ii) CRL.M.C. 4199/2013 KETAN TANWAR & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mukesh ^ Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
(ii) CRL.M.C. 4199/2013 KETAN TANWAR & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mukesh Mr. Sulacha, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mukesh Mr. Sulacha, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
04.10.2013 CrI.M.As. No.14978 & 14976/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions..
CRL.M.C. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7433
CRL. M.Cs. N0.4190 & 4199 of 2013 On 26"" June, 2013 at around 7 P.M., an altercation had taken place between petitioners-A^eero/ Tanwar and his two brothers with Ketan
Tanwar and his two associates in respect of which cross FIRs for the offences under Sections 308/324/341/34 of IPG were registered at P.S.
Naraina, Delhi. FIR No.158/2013 [in Crl.M.C.4190/13] was registered first in point of time and FIR No.159/2013 [in Crl.M.C. 4199/2013], which is a cross FIR, was registered later in point of time, but on the same day.
' Ketan Tanwar is the complainant/first-informant of the afore- referred FIR No.158/2013 and he alongwith Uday Singh Tanwar and
Ranbir Singh Tanwar were injured in this incident whereas Neeraj
Tanwar is complainant/first-informant of afore-said FIR No.159/2013 and he as well as Vikram and Tapan were injured in this incident.
Since the subject matter of these two FIRs is overlapping and pertains to one incident, therefore, withthe consent of the learned counsel for parties, both these petitions seeking quashing of aforesaid two cross
FIRs i.e. FIR No.158/2013 & 159/2013 are heard and being disposed of together by this common order.
Upon notice, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice of these two petitions on behalf of Respondent-State and submits that UdaySingh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar are injured of
FIR No.158/2013, and Vikram and Tapan are injured of FIR
No. 159/2013, who have not been made a party in these two petitions.
Upon oral request of learned counsel for petitioners, injured Uday Singh
Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar are impleaded as respondent No.3 & 4
CRL.M.C. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 2 in above captioned first petition and Vib'am and Tapan are impleaded as respondent No.3 & 4 in above captioned Second petition. Amended
Memo ofParties be placed on record within a week.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Neeraj Tanwar, Uday
Singh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar [in Crl.M.C. 4190/2013] and
Ketan, Vikram and Tapan have today placedtheir affidavits on record in support of above captioned two petitions.
Mr.J.K. Bhola, learned counsel for respondent No.2- in above captioned first petition submits that complainant -respondent ^o.2-Ketan as well as injured Ranbir Singh Tanwar and Uday Singh Tanwar of FIR
No.158/2013 are present in the Court and he identifies them to be so.
.Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that Ranbir Singh Tanwar and UdaySingh Tanwar have placed their affidavits on record in support of above captioned second petition.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that SI Mukesh identifies petitioners of above captioned first petition as accused of FIR No.158/2013 and respondent No.2-i^eto« as well as Uday
Singh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar as injured of FIR No.158/2013 on the basis of identity proofs furnished by them.
Similarly, petitioners in the above captioned second petition have been identified as accused of FIR No. 159/2013 and respondent No.2-
Neeraj Tanwar as well as Vikram and Tapan as injured of FIR
No. 159/2013 by SI Mukesh on the basis of identity proofs furnished by them.
Complainants/first-informants as well as injured of the above- referred two cross FIRs present in the Court affirm the contents of their
CRLMC. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 3 affidavits placed on record today and submits that the incident inquestion had happened due to misunderstanding between the parties, which is now cleared with the intervention of respectable persons, relatives and friends and that both the sides are residing in the same neighbourhood and to restore cordiality amongst them, the proceedings arising out of aforesaid two cross FIRs be brought to an end. Both the sides undertake that in future such incident will not take place.
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 tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law> despite settlement and compromise 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 affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared and as both the sides have clean antecedents, I find that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of aforesaid two cross FIRs be brought to an end.
Consequently, these two petitions are allowed and above-referred two cross FIRs i.e. FIR No.158/2013 [in Crl.M.C.4190/13] and FIR
No.159/2013 [in Crl.M.C. 4199/2013] both under Sections
CRL.M.C. 4190 &4199of2013 Page 4 308/324/341/34 of IPG registered at P.S. Naraina, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to consolidated cost of
^60,000/- to be borne equally by petitioners of above referred two petitions to be deposited in the Prime Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on record within one week thereafter.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 04, 2013 s CRL.M.C. 4190 &4199 of2013 Page 5
. J
04.10.2013 CrI.M.As. No.14978 & 14976/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions..
CRL.M.C. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7433
CRL. M.Cs. N0.4190 & 4199 of 2013 On 26"" June, 2013 at around 7 P.M., an altercation had taken place between petitioners-A^eero/ Tanwar and his two brothers with Ketan
Tanwar and his two associates in respect of which cross FIRs for the offences under Sections 308/324/341/34 of IPG were registered at P.S.
Naraina, Delhi. FIR No.158/2013 [in Crl.M.C.4190/13] was registered first in point of time and FIR No.159/2013 [in Crl.M.C. 4199/2013], which is a cross FIR, was registered later in point of time, but on the same day.
' Ketan Tanwar is the complainant/first-informant of the afore- referred FIR No.158/2013 and he alongwith Uday Singh Tanwar and
Ranbir Singh Tanwar were injured in this incident whereas Neeraj
Tanwar is complainant/first-informant of afore-said FIR No.159/2013 and he as well as Vikram and Tapan were injured in this incident.
Since the subject matter of these two FIRs is overlapping and pertains to one incident, therefore, withthe consent of the learned counsel for parties, both these petitions seeking quashing of aforesaid two cross
FIRs i.e. FIR No.158/2013 & 159/2013 are heard and being disposed of together by this common order.
Upon notice, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice of these two petitions on behalf of Respondent-State and submits that UdaySingh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar are injured of
FIR No.158/2013, and Vikram and Tapan are injured of FIR
No. 159/2013, who have not been made a party in these two petitions.
Upon oral request of learned counsel for petitioners, injured Uday Singh
Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar are impleaded as respondent No.3 & 4
CRL.M.C. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 2 in above captioned first petition and Vib'am and Tapan are impleaded as respondent No.3 & 4 in above captioned Second petition. Amended
Memo ofParties be placed on record within a week.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Neeraj Tanwar, Uday
Singh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar [in Crl.M.C. 4190/2013] and
Ketan, Vikram and Tapan have today placedtheir affidavits on record in support of above captioned two petitions.
Mr.J.K. Bhola, learned counsel for respondent No.2- in above captioned first petition submits that complainant -respondent ^o.2-Ketan as well as injured Ranbir Singh Tanwar and Uday Singh Tanwar of FIR
No.158/2013 are present in the Court and he identifies them to be so.
.Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that Ranbir Singh Tanwar and UdaySingh Tanwar have placed their affidavits on record in support of above captioned second petition.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that SI Mukesh identifies petitioners of above captioned first petition as accused of FIR No.158/2013 and respondent No.2-i^eto« as well as Uday
Singh Tanwar and Ranbir Singh Tanwar as injured of FIR No.158/2013 on the basis of identity proofs furnished by them.
Similarly, petitioners in the above captioned second petition have been identified as accused of FIR No. 159/2013 and respondent No.2-
Neeraj Tanwar as well as Vikram and Tapan as injured of FIR
No. 159/2013 by SI Mukesh on the basis of identity proofs furnished by them.
Complainants/first-informants as well as injured of the above- referred two cross FIRs present in the Court affirm the contents of their
CRLMC. 4190 & 4199 of2013 Page 3 affidavits placed on record today and submits that the incident inquestion had happened due to misunderstanding between the parties, which is now cleared with the intervention of respectable persons, relatives and friends and that both the sides are residing in the same neighbourhood and to restore cordiality amongst them, the proceedings arising out of aforesaid two cross FIRs be brought to an end. Both the sides undertake that in future such incident will not take place.
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 tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law> despite settlement and compromise 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 affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared and as both the sides have clean antecedents, I find that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of aforesaid two cross FIRs be brought to an end.
Consequently, these two petitions are allowed and above-referred two cross FIRs i.e. FIR No.158/2013 [in Crl.M.C.4190/13] and FIR
No.159/2013 [in Crl.M.C. 4199/2013] both under Sections
CRL.M.C. 4190 &4199of2013 Page 4 308/324/341/34 of IPG registered at P.S. Naraina, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to consolidated cost of
^60,000/- to be borne equally by petitioners of above referred two petitions to be deposited in the Prime Minister's ReliefFund within two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on record within one week thereafter.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 04, 2013 s CRL.M.C. 4190 &4199 of2013 Page 5
. J
JUDGMENT