Full Text
Translation output
•X
$-50 & 53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 3651/2013
INDERPAL SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
$-50 & 53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 3651/2013
INDERPAL SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional ^ Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ram Gopal (ii) CRL.M.C. 3659/2013
INDERPAL SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional ^ Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ram Gopal (ii) CRL.M.C. 3659/2013
INDERPAL SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Mukesh Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Mukesh Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
06.09.2013
♦
Cri.M.As. No. 13292 & 13300/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.Cs. NO. 3651 & 3659 of 2013 FIR No.844/2004, under Sections 323/380/452/34 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi regarding an incident of 5^'^ November, 2004, in which Pramod Kumar (son-in-law of petitioner No.l) was injured. Prior to aforesaid FIR, another FIR No.19/2003 under Sections
IS
CRL.M.Cs.NO.3651 &3659of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7424
307/34 ofIPG was registered at P.S. Maya Puri, Delhi on 25"' January, 2003 regarding an incident in which Sukhram (brother of Pramod
Kumar) was injured.
With the consent of both sides, these two similar petitions were taken up together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Quashing ofaforesaid two FIRs is sought in the above-captioned two petitions on the strength of Mediated Settlements, which had taken place on April, 2013 (Annexure ~'C).
Notice.
Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State, accepts notice of above-captioned first petition on behalf of
Respondent-State and Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, accepts notice ofthe above-captioned second petition.
Respondent No.2-Pra/woJ Kumar, present in the Court, accepts notice of above-captioned first petition and respondent ^o.l-Sukhram accepts notice of above-captioned second petition and they have been identified to be the first-informant and injured respectively of the aforesaidtwo FIRs by SI Ram Gopal and SI Mukesh Kumar on the basis of the identityproofproducedby them.
It is pointed out that Mr. Pramod Rai the first informant of FIR
No.19/2003 was a passerby and his presence in these matters is not necessary. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, on instructions from SI Ram Gopal, also points outthat in FIR No.19/2003, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under
Section 324/34 of IPC though the FIR was registered under Sections
307/34 ofIPC.
CRL.M.Cs.NO.3651 &3659 of2013 . Page2 Respondent Ylo.l-PramodKumar and his hro^Qx-Sukhram, present in the Court, affirm the contents ofMediated Settlements of April,.
2013 (Annexure-C) and of their affidavits of 24"' August, 2013 supporting these petitions and submit thatthe subject matter of these two
FIRs stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and now no dispute between the parties survives as the matrimonial litigation between Pramod Kumar and his Wii^-Babita has been also mutually resolved and they have been already divorced and so the proceedings arising outofthese two FIRs bebrought to anend..
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing asunder:-
"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 criminalproceedings would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlementand 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 on the basis ofMediated Settlement of27^' April, 2013 (Annexure -'C'), I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of these two FIRs would indeed be an exercise in futility.
Consequently, FIR No.844/2004, under Sections 323/380/452/34
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3651 &3659 of2013 Page 3 f of the IPC registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi and FIR No.19/2003 iinder
Sections 307/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Maya Puri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners of these two petitions.
These two petitions are accordingly disposed of
SEPTEMBER 06,2013 s CRL. M.Cs. N0.3651 & 3659 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 4
06.09.2013
♦
Cri.M.As. No. 13292 & 13300/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL. M.Cs. NO. 3651 & 3659 of 2013 FIR No.844/2004, under Sections 323/380/452/34 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi regarding an incident of 5^'^ November, 2004, in which Pramod Kumar (son-in-law of petitioner No.l) was injured. Prior to aforesaid FIR, another FIR No.19/2003 under Sections
IS
CRL.M.Cs.NO.3651 &3659of2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7424
307/34 ofIPG was registered at P.S. Maya Puri, Delhi on 25"' January, 2003 regarding an incident in which Sukhram (brother of Pramod
Kumar) was injured.
With the consent of both sides, these two similar petitions were taken up together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Quashing ofaforesaid two FIRs is sought in the above-captioned two petitions on the strength of Mediated Settlements, which had taken place on April, 2013 (Annexure ~'C).
Notice.
Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State, accepts notice of above-captioned first petition on behalf of
Respondent-State and Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, accepts notice ofthe above-captioned second petition.
Respondent No.2-Pra/woJ Kumar, present in the Court, accepts notice of above-captioned first petition and respondent ^o.l-Sukhram accepts notice of above-captioned second petition and they have been identified to be the first-informant and injured respectively of the aforesaidtwo FIRs by SI Ram Gopal and SI Mukesh Kumar on the basis of the identityproofproducedby them.
It is pointed out that Mr. Pramod Rai the first informant of FIR
No.19/2003 was a passerby and his presence in these matters is not necessary. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, on instructions from SI Ram Gopal, also points outthat in FIR No.19/2003, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under
Section 324/34 of IPC though the FIR was registered under Sections
307/34 ofIPC.
CRL.M.Cs.NO.3651 &3659 of2013 . Page2 Respondent Ylo.l-PramodKumar and his hro^Qx-Sukhram, present in the Court, affirm the contents ofMediated Settlements of April,.
2013 (Annexure-C) and of their affidavits of 24"' August, 2013 supporting these petitions and submit thatthe subject matter of these two
FIRs stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and now no dispute between the parties survives as the matrimonial litigation between Pramod Kumar and his Wii^-Babita has been also mutually resolved and they have been already divorced and so the proceedings arising outofthese two FIRs bebrought to anend..
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing asunder:-
"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 criminalproceedings would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlementand 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 on the basis ofMediated Settlement of27^' April, 2013 (Annexure -'C'), I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of these two FIRs would indeed be an exercise in futility.
Consequently, FIR No.844/2004, under Sections 323/380/452/34
CRL. M.Cs. N0.3651 &3659 of2013 Page 3 f of the IPC registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi and FIR No.19/2003 iinder
Sections 307/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Maya Puri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners of these two petitions.
These two petitions are accordingly disposed of
SEPTEMBER 06,2013 s CRL. M.Cs. N0.3651 & 3659 of2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 4
JUDGMENT