Full Text
Translation output
$-48 & 49 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C 3647/2013
PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Vikrant
Respondent No.2 in person (ii) CRL.M.C. 3648/2013
PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR Petitioners STATE
Through: Mr. Bhu I>utt Sharma, Advocate
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Vikrant
Respondent No.2 in person (ii) CRL.M.C. 3648/2013
PRAMOD KUMAR & ANR Petitioners STATE
Through: Mr. Bhu I>utt Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
Respondent
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajbir Singh Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajbir Singh Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
06.09.2013 Crl.M.As. No.13289 & 13290/2013 rExemption^
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions, CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 & 3648 of 2013
With the consent of both sides, these two petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
CRL. M.Cs. NO.3647& 3648 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7421
Due to matrimonial discord, FIR No.84/2003 under Sections
452/323/324/34of IPC was registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi on
4"^ March, 2003 at the instance of respondent 'Ho.l-Babita, who is complainant/first-informant of this FIR, against her husband-Pramoi/
Kumar and his relatives.
Prior to aforesaid FIR, respondent No.2 had also lodged FIR
No.268/2002 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at P.S.
Mansarovar Park, Delhi on 26^^ July, 2002 against petitioner-husband and his relatives.
Quashing of aforesaid two FIRs is sought in the above-captioned two petitions on the strength of Mediated Settlements (Annexures -'B' and 'C') which had taken place on 27'^ April, 2013.
Notice.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalfof Respondent-State.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, accepts notice of these two petitions and she has been identified to be the first-informant of the FIR in question of FIR No.84/2003 in the first petition by SI Vikrant and of
FIR No.268/2002 by SI Rajbir Singh, on the basis of the identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of Mediated Settlements of
21^ April, 2013 (Annexure -'B' and 'C) and of her affidavits of 24'^'
August, 2013 supporting these two petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives as today, she has received the balance settled amount of ?6.50 lac by way of demand draft No.930551 of 27""
August, 2013 and therefore, she wants that the proceedings arising out of
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 & 3648of2013 these two FIRs be brought to an end provided petitioners undertake to pay the rest of the settled amount in terms of the aforesaid Mediated
Settlements of27"^ April, 2013 (Annexure - 'B'and 'C).
Learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions from petitioners, submits that the Mediated Settlements of27"" April, 2013 (Annexure - 'B' and 'C') would be fully acted upon by petitioners and ifthey fail to do so, thenthey will not have any benefit of thisorder.
Aforesaid undertaking is taken on record and petitioners shall be bound by it.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour togivefull effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, itdoes so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminalproceedings will be an exercise infutility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is putto an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor. "
In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it is deemed appropriate to bring the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs to an end.
Continuance of proceedings arising out of these two FIRs would be an
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 &3648 of2013 f exercise in futility as the Mediated Settlements of 27"^ April, 2013
(Annexure - 'B' and 'C) arrived at between the parties finally resolves the disputes, which were the subject matter ofthese two FIRs.
Consequently, FIR No.84/2003 under Sections 452/323/324/34 of
IPC and FIR No.268/2002 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC both registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners ofthese two petitions.
These two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 06,2013 s CRL.M.Cs.N0.3647 & 3648of2013 Page 4
06.09.2013 Crl.M.As. No.13289 & 13290/2013 rExemption^
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions, CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 & 3648 of 2013
With the consent of both sides, these two petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
CRL. M.Cs. NO.3647& 3648 of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7421
Due to matrimonial discord, FIR No.84/2003 under Sections
452/323/324/34of IPC was registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi on
4"^ March, 2003 at the instance of respondent 'Ho.l-Babita, who is complainant/first-informant of this FIR, against her husband-Pramoi/
Kumar and his relatives.
Prior to aforesaid FIR, respondent No.2 had also lodged FIR
No.268/2002 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at P.S.
Mansarovar Park, Delhi on 26^^ July, 2002 against petitioner-husband and his relatives.
Quashing of aforesaid two FIRs is sought in the above-captioned two petitions on the strength of Mediated Settlements (Annexures -'B' and 'C') which had taken place on 27'^ April, 2013.
Notice.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalfof Respondent-State.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, accepts notice of these two petitions and she has been identified to be the first-informant of the FIR in question of FIR No.84/2003 in the first petition by SI Vikrant and of
FIR No.268/2002 by SI Rajbir Singh, on the basis of the identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of Mediated Settlements of
21^ April, 2013 (Annexure -'B' and 'C) and of her affidavits of 24'^'
August, 2013 supporting these two petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives as today, she has received the balance settled amount of ?6.50 lac by way of demand draft No.930551 of 27""
August, 2013 and therefore, she wants that the proceedings arising out of
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 & 3648of2013 these two FIRs be brought to an end provided petitioners undertake to pay the rest of the settled amount in terms of the aforesaid Mediated
Settlements of27"^ April, 2013 (Annexure - 'B'and 'C).
Learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions from petitioners, submits that the Mediated Settlements of27"" April, 2013 (Annexure - 'B' and 'C') would be fully acted upon by petitioners and ifthey fail to do so, thenthey will not have any benefit of thisorder.
Aforesaid undertaking is taken on record and petitioners shall be bound by it.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour togivefull effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, itdoes so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminalproceedings will be an exercise infutility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is putto an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guidingfactor. "
In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it is deemed appropriate to bring the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs to an end.
Continuance of proceedings arising out of these two FIRs would be an
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3647 &3648 of2013 f exercise in futility as the Mediated Settlements of 27"^ April, 2013
(Annexure - 'B' and 'C) arrived at between the parties finally resolves the disputes, which were the subject matter ofthese two FIRs.
Consequently, FIR No.84/2003 under Sections 452/323/324/34 of
IPC and FIR No.268/2002 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC both registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners ofthese two petitions.
These two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge SEPTEMBER 06,2013 s CRL.M.Cs.N0.3647 & 3648of2013 Page 4
JUDGMENT