Full Text
Translation output
'y-T HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 258/2013 & Crl.
M.A. No. 896/2013
SONU & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suresh Jha, Advocate
M.A. No. 896/2013
SONU & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suresh Jha, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State with SI Yogesh Kumar Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2
(ii) CRL.M.C. 280/2013 & Crl.
M.A. NO. 942/2013
NAVEEN & ORS. Petitioners STATE «& ANR.
Through: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
Through: Mr. RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State with SI Yogesh Kumar Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2
(ii) CRL.M.C. 280/2013 & Crl.
M.A. NO. 942/2013
NAVEEN & ORS. Petitioners STATE «& ANR.
Through: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
Respondents
Through: Mr.RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State with SI Yogesh Kumar Mr. Suresh Jha, Advocate for respondent No.2
Through: Mr.RaviNayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State with SI Yogesh Kumar Mr. Suresh Jha, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
05.09.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 156/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPG [in Crl. M.C. No.
Crl. M.C. No.258/2013 Crl. M.C No.280/2013 / Page 1
2013:DHC:7298 258/2013] and FIR No. 153/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPG
[in Crl. M.C. No.280/2013] both registered at police station Timarpur, Delhi, is sought by petitioners.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, submitsthat the abovenoted two petitionspertainto the incident of6**^ July, 2011 and two cross FIRs have been registered by the parties.
In the light of above, with the consent of counsel for parties, the above-captioned two petitions were heard and disposed of by this common order.
Counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions belong to one family and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 6''^ July, 2011 amongst them and it culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs and that now with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding has been clearedand inter se disputehas been amicably resolved by the parties.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Pramod
Kumar has been identified as the first informant of FIR No. 156/2011 [in
Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013] and Jai Karan, as the first-informant of FIR NO. 153/2011 [Crl. M.C. No. 280/2013] by Yogesh Kumar, Investigating
Officer of these two FIR cases. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
State also submits that the remaining petitioners - Sonu, Pyare Lai, Dhermender, Jitender, Naveen Kumar, Kuldeep, Pradeep & Santosh are also present in the Court
Crl. M.C. No.258/2013 Page 2 PramodKumar and Jai Karan, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs, 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. The parties present in the Court also affirm contents of their affidavits placed onrecord 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 ofamicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour 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 of thefact thatsuch 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 issatisfied that on the face 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 bedefeated."
Considering the fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who belong to the same family, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality andpeaceamongst the parties.
Crl M.C. No.258/2013 ~ Page 3 Crl. M.C. No.280/2013
Accordingly, FIR No. 156/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the
IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013] and FIR No. 153/2011 under Sections
308/323/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No.280/2013] both registered at police station Timarpur, Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject tothese ten petitioners (in Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013 &Crl.
M.C. No. 280/2013) depositing cost of Rs.5,000/- each with the Prime
Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks. Receipts of deposit of cost be placedonrecord within a weekthereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications areaccordingly disposed of
(SUNILGAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05,2013 r CrlM.C. No.258/2013 Page 4
05.09.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 156/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPG [in Crl. M.C. No.
Crl. M.C. No.258/2013 Crl. M.C No.280/2013 / Page 1
2013:DHC:7298 258/2013] and FIR No. 153/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the IPG
[in Crl. M.C. No.280/2013] both registered at police station Timarpur, Delhi, is sought by petitioners.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, submitsthat the abovenoted two petitionspertainto the incident of6**^ July, 2011 and two cross FIRs have been registered by the parties.
In the light of above, with the consent of counsel for parties, the above-captioned two petitions were heard and disposed of by this common order.
Counsel for petitioners' submits that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions belong to one family and due to misunderstanding, a scuffle took place on 6''^ July, 2011 amongst them and it culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs and that now with the intervention of elderly persons of the family, the misunderstanding has been clearedand inter se disputehas been amicably resolved by the parties.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, Pramod
Kumar has been identified as the first informant of FIR No. 156/2011 [in
Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013] and Jai Karan, as the first-informant of FIR NO. 153/2011 [Crl. M.C. No. 280/2013] by Yogesh Kumar, Investigating
Officer of these two FIR cases. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
State also submits that the remaining petitioners - Sonu, Pyare Lai, Dhermender, Jitender, Naveen Kumar, Kuldeep, Pradeep & Santosh are also present in the Court
Crl. M.C. No.258/2013 Page 2 PramodKumar and Jai Karan, who are the first-informants of two cross afore-noted FIRs, 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. The parties present in the Court also affirm contents of their affidavits placed onrecord 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 ofamicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour 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 of thefact thatsuch 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 issatisfied that on the face 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 bedefeated."
Considering the fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertain to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved amongst the parties who belong to the same family, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the FIRs in question to bring cordiality andpeaceamongst the parties.
Crl M.C. No.258/2013 ~ Page 3 Crl. M.C. No.280/2013
Accordingly, FIR No. 156/2011 under Sections 308/323/34 of the
IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013] and FIR No. 153/2011 under Sections
308/323/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No.280/2013] both registered at police station Timarpur, Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons subject tothese ten petitioners (in Crl. M.C. No. 258/2013 &Crl.
M.C. No. 280/2013) depositing cost of Rs.5,000/- each with the Prime
Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks. Receipts of deposit of cost be placedonrecord within a weekthereafter.
The above captioned two petitions and applications areaccordingly disposed of
(SUNILGAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05,2013 r CrlM.C. No.258/2013 Page 4
JUDGMENT