Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 4015/2013 MUJAHID ALI & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mohd. Sajid, Mr. Abid Ibrahim and Ms. Kiran Bairwa, Advocates
(i) CRL.M.C. 4015/2013 MUJAHID ALI & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mohd. Sajid, Mr. Abid Ibrahim and Ms. Kiran Bairwa, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ^ Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PubHcProsecutor for respondent-
State with SI Surender Singh (ii) CRL.M.C. 4035/2013
KASIM @ KASIF MEHMOOD «&ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mohd. Sajid, Mr. Abid Ibrahim and Ms. Kiran Bairwa, Advocates
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PubHcProsecutor for respondent-
State with SI Surender Singh (ii) CRL.M.C. 4035/2013
KASIM @ KASIF MEHMOOD «&ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mohd. Sajid, Mr. Abid Ibrahim and Ms. Kiran Bairwa, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Surender Singh
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Surender Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
23.09.2013 Quashing of FIR No.216/2012 under Sections 325/341/323/34 of
IPC [in Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and FIR No.217/2012 under Sections
452/323/34 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4035/2013], both registered at P.S.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi, is sought in above-captioned two petitions.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
CrlM.C.4015& 4035 of2013 Pagel 2013:DHC:7431 respondent-State, submits that the above noted two petitions pertain to incident of 9*^ June, 2012 and two cross FIRs have been registered bythe parties.
With the consent of learnedcounselfor parties, both these petitions are heard together and arebeing disposed ofbythis common order.
Learned counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are related to each other and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 9'*^ June, 2012 amongst them which led to registration of the aforesaid two cross FIRs and that now, with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding hasbeen cleared and interse dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties in terms of Compromise/Settlement Deed of ll''"
September, 2013 (Annexure P-3).
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent l^o.l-Wasim Ahmed is the complainant/first-informant of the FIR inquestion and that there are two other injured persons i.eJaved
Salim and Qasim Mehmood, who are not made parties herein [in
Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and that Injured-Javet:/ Salim, present in the Court, tenders his affidavit of 23'"'^ September, 2013 giving no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012. Respondent ^o2-Wasim Mehmood, on instructions from injured-gwai'/w Mehmood, gives no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012 on his behalf as he is not present in the
Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that respondent No.2-5w?. Shok Bano is the complainant/first- informant of the FIR [in Crl.M.C.4035/2012] and there are four other
Crl.M.C.4015& 4035 of2013 Page 2 injured persons, who are not made parties herein, i.e. Muazam Ali, Mudabir Ali, Mudaser and Mujahid Ali, who are present in the Court today except Mauzam Ali and MujahidAli, and submits that affidavit of m]m&^-Mudabir Alihas beenplaced on record and affidavit on behalfof
\n]mQ(X-Mudassir, who is a minor, has been also filed by respondent
No.2-<S'm^. Shok Bano, giving no objection to the quashing of this FIR, both affidavits of 23"^ September, 2013. Respondent Ylo2-Smt. Shok Bano, on instructions from injured- Mauzam Ali and Mujahid Ali, gives no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012 on their behalf as they are not present in the Court.
Respondent 'Ho.l-Wasim Ahmed has been identified as the first informant of FIR No.216/2012 [in Crl. M.C. No.4015/2013] and Smt. Shok Bano as the first-informant of FIR No.217/2012 [in Crl. M.C. NO. 4035/2013] by SI Surender Singh, Investigating Officer of these two FIR cases, on the basis of identify proof furnished by them. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for State also submits that the remaining petitioners-MujahidAli, Maujam Ali and Fateh Ali@Karu [in Crl M. C.
No.4015/2013] and Kasim @ KasifMehmood, Zuber, Sageer Ajmal and
Asim @Asim Ajmal [in Crl M.C. No. 4035/2013] are alsopresent in the
Court and their affidavits giving no objection to the quashing of aforesaid two FIRs are already on record.
Respondent ^o2-Wasim Ahmed and Smt. Shok Bano, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs, as well as the parties concerned 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.
CrI.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013 Page 3 The parties present in the Court also 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:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civilflavour 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 ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit is 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 fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved betweenthe partieswho are relatedto each other, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Resultantly, FIR No.216/2012 under Sections 325/341/323/34 of
IPC [in Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and FIR No.217/2012 under Sections
452/323/34 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4035/2013], both registered at P.S.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi, and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
Crl.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013 Page 4 qua petitioners-accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 23,2013 s CrI.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
23.09.2013 Quashing of FIR No.216/2012 under Sections 325/341/323/34 of
IPC [in Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and FIR No.217/2012 under Sections
452/323/34 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4035/2013], both registered at P.S.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi, is sought in above-captioned two petitions.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
CrlM.C.4015& 4035 of2013 Pagel 2013:DHC:7431 respondent-State, submits that the above noted two petitions pertain to incident of 9*^ June, 2012 and two cross FIRs have been registered bythe parties.
With the consent of learnedcounselfor parties, both these petitions are heard together and arebeing disposed ofbythis common order.
Learned counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions are related to each other and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 9'*^ June, 2012 amongst them which led to registration of the aforesaid two cross FIRs and that now, with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding hasbeen cleared and interse dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties in terms of Compromise/Settlement Deed of ll''"
September, 2013 (Annexure P-3).
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent l^o.l-Wasim Ahmed is the complainant/first-informant of the FIR inquestion and that there are two other injured persons i.eJaved
Salim and Qasim Mehmood, who are not made parties herein [in
Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and that Injured-Javet:/ Salim, present in the Court, tenders his affidavit of 23'"'^ September, 2013 giving no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012. Respondent ^o2-Wasim Mehmood, on instructions from injured-gwai'/w Mehmood, gives no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012 on his behalf as he is not present in the
Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that respondent No.2-5w?. Shok Bano is the complainant/first- informant of the FIR [in Crl.M.C.4035/2012] and there are four other
Crl.M.C.4015& 4035 of2013 Page 2 injured persons, who are not made parties herein, i.e. Muazam Ali, Mudabir Ali, Mudaser and Mujahid Ali, who are present in the Court today except Mauzam Ali and MujahidAli, and submits that affidavit of m]m&^-Mudabir Alihas beenplaced on record and affidavit on behalfof
\n]mQ(X-Mudassir, who is a minor, has been also filed by respondent
No.2-<S'm^. Shok Bano, giving no objection to the quashing of this FIR, both affidavits of 23"^ September, 2013. Respondent Ylo2-Smt. Shok Bano, on instructions from injured- Mauzam Ali and Mujahid Ali, gives no objection to the quashing of FIR No.216/2012 on their behalf as they are not present in the Court.
Respondent 'Ho.l-Wasim Ahmed has been identified as the first informant of FIR No.216/2012 [in Crl. M.C. No.4015/2013] and Smt. Shok Bano as the first-informant of FIR No.217/2012 [in Crl. M.C. NO. 4035/2013] by SI Surender Singh, Investigating Officer of these two FIR cases, on the basis of identify proof furnished by them. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for State also submits that the remaining petitioners-MujahidAli, Maujam Ali and Fateh Ali@Karu [in Crl M. C.
No.4015/2013] and Kasim @ KasifMehmood, Zuber, Sageer Ajmal and
Asim @Asim Ajmal [in Crl M.C. No. 4035/2013] are alsopresent in the
Court and their affidavits giving no objection to the quashing of aforesaid two FIRs are already on record.
Respondent ^o2-Wasim Ahmed and Smt. Shok Bano, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs, as well as the parties concerned 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.
CrI.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013 Page 3 The parties present in the Court also 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:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civilflavour 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 ofthefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit is 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 fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved betweenthe partieswho are relatedto each other, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties.
Resultantly, FIR No.216/2012 under Sections 325/341/323/34 of
IPC [in Crl.M.C.4015/2013] and FIR No.217/2012 under Sections
452/323/34 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4035/2013], both registered at P.S.
Malviya Nagar, Delhi, and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed
Crl.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013 Page 4 qua petitioners-accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 23,2013 s CrI.M.C.4015 &4035 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
JUDGMENT