Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 1223/2013 IMTIAZ SAGIR KHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Santosh K. Ravi, Advocate
(i) CRL.M.C. 1223/2013 IMTIAZ SAGIR KHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Santosh K. Ravi, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional PubUc Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Manish Kumar (ii) CRL.M.C. 1226/2013
IMTIAZ SAGIR KHAN & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh K. Ravi, Advocate
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional PubUc Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Manish Kumar (ii) CRL.M.C. 1226/2013
IMTIAZ SAGIR KHAN & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh K. Ravi, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE 8c ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Manish Kumar
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Manish Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
12.09.2013 Quashing of FIR No. 344/2004, under Sections 498Ay406/495/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seelampur, Delhi [in Crl M.C. NO. 1223/2013J and FIR No. 125/2006, under Sections 465/468/469/471/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seemapuri, Delhi [in Crl.. M.C.
No. 1226/2013] is sought in the above captioned two petitions.
CrlM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7319
(o Learned counsel for petitioners' points out that respondent No.2-
Seema in the above captioned two petitions is the first-informant of the two FIRs in question and the subject matter of these two FIRs stands settled through Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in terms ofSettlement-Agreement of20''^ March, 2012. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.l is the husband of respondent No.2 and he is residing in Dubai and he has executed a Special Power of
Attorney on record in favour of his father to represent him before this
Court.
On the last date of hearing, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and had submitted that respondent No.2 is present in the Court. Respondent No.2 had affirmed the factum of settlement, but had submitted that in terms of settlement, petitioner No.l be directed to give the original Talaqnama to her. Learned counsel for petitioner had sought adjournment to so. Today, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record a copy of the
Talaqnama of9^^' September, 2013 and its original has been handed over to SI Manish Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case, as respondent
No.2 is not present in the Court today. However, she had given no objection to the quashing of these two FIRs when respondent No.2 had appeared in person on the last date ofhearing.
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:-
"Resoliition of a dispute by way of a compromise between t\vo warring groups, therefore, CrlM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 2 should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society or wouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to thefact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offencesare not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor. "
Since respondent No.2 was present in the Court on the last date of hearing and had affirmed the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, therefore, both these FIRs i.e. FIR No. 344/2004, under Sections
498A/406/495/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seelampur, Delhi [in Crl M.C. No. 1223/2013] and FIR No. 125/2006, under
Sections 465/468/469/471/34 of the IPC, registered at police station
Seemapuri, Delhi [in Crl.. M.C. No. 1226/2013] and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to obtain the original Talaqnama from SI Manish
Kumar, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 s CrLM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 3
12.09.2013 Quashing of FIR No. 344/2004, under Sections 498Ay406/495/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seelampur, Delhi [in Crl M.C. NO. 1223/2013J and FIR No. 125/2006, under Sections 465/468/469/471/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seemapuri, Delhi [in Crl.. M.C.
No. 1226/2013] is sought in the above captioned two petitions.
CrlM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7319
(o Learned counsel for petitioners' points out that respondent No.2-
Seema in the above captioned two petitions is the first-informant of the two FIRs in question and the subject matter of these two FIRs stands settled through Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in terms ofSettlement-Agreement of20''^ March, 2012. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner No.l is the husband of respondent No.2 and he is residing in Dubai and he has executed a Special Power of
Attorney on record in favour of his father to represent him before this
Court.
On the last date of hearing, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and had submitted that respondent No.2 is present in the Court. Respondent No.2 had affirmed the factum of settlement, but had submitted that in terms of settlement, petitioner No.l be directed to give the original Talaqnama to her. Learned counsel for petitioner had sought adjournment to so. Today, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record a copy of the
Talaqnama of9^^' September, 2013 and its original has been handed over to SI Manish Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case, as respondent
No.2 is not present in the Court today. However, she had given no objection to the quashing of these two FIRs when respondent No.2 had appeared in person on the last date ofhearing.
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:-
"Resoliition of a dispute by way of a compromise between t\vo warring groups, therefore, CrlM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 2 should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society or wouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to thefact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offencesare not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor. "
Since respondent No.2 was present in the Court on the last date of hearing and had affirmed the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, therefore, both these FIRs i.e. FIR No. 344/2004, under Sections
498A/406/495/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Seelampur, Delhi [in Crl M.C. No. 1223/2013] and FIR No. 125/2006, under
Sections 465/468/469/471/34 of the IPC, registered at police station
Seemapuri, Delhi [in Crl.. M.C. No. 1226/2013] and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to obtain the original Talaqnama from SI Manish
Kumar, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Both these petitions are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 s CrLM.Cs. 1223 &1226 of2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT