Full Text
Translation output
Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2985/2013
PREM SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 2985/2013
PREM SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for Respondent-
State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advocate Mr. M.A.H.Warsi, Advocate for
Respondents No.2 & 3
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for Respondent-
State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Advocate Mr. M.A.H.Warsi, Advocate for
Respondents No.2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 07.08.2013
CRL.M.C. 2985/2013 & Crl.M.A. No.11309/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
On 20th March, 2013, a quarrel took place between petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3, who are said to be neighbours, on a trivial issue, which culminated into registration of FIR No. 71/2012, under Sections
308/34 of the IPC, at police station Usman Pur, Delhi. The aforesaid FIR was got registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against petitioners.
Petitioners are seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the subject matter of FIR in question stands amicably and mutually resolved between the parties in terms of Memorandum of Understanding /
2013:DHC:3945 Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 2 Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B).
Notice.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.1-State accepts notice and submits that respondents No. 2 & 3 are present in the Court and on the basis of identify proof furnished by them, they have been identified to be the first informant/ complainant and injured in the FIR in question.
Mr. Mohd. Asfar Heyat Warsi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 and has placed on record his vakalatnama/
Power of Attorney. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 on instructions submits that besides the present FIR, cross FIR NO. 121/2002, under Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC was also got registered at police station Karawal Nagar, Delhi at the instance of petitioner No.1 pertaining to the incident in question, which has not yet been got quashed in terms of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding /
Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B). Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that petition for quashing of FIR NO. 121/2002 would be moved by them within four weeks.
Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that petitioners are ready to cooperate with respondents in quashing of FIR
No. 121/2002, under Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Karawal Nagar, Delhi and an undertaking to this effect by way of affidavit would be placed on record within a week.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that if petitioners cooperate in the quashing of cross FIR No. 121/2002 in terms
Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 3 of Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B), then they have no objection to the quashing of FIR 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:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
Since the subject matter of FIR stands settled between the parties in terms of Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B) and both sides are agreeing to abide by its terms and conditions in true letter and spirit, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with these proceedings.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 71/2012, under
Sections 308/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Usman Pur, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners subject to their filing affidavit within a week to the effect that they would cooperate respondents No. 2 & 3 in getting FIR No. 121/2002, under
Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 4 Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Karawal
Nagar, Delhi quashed and depositing cost of `15,000/- each with the
Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within four weeks. Needless to say that respondents No. 2 & 3 shall also file abide by their undertaking of moving quashing petition pertaining to FIR No. 121/2002 within four weeks.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2013 r
On 20th March, 2013, a quarrel took place between petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3, who are said to be neighbours, on a trivial issue, which culminated into registration of FIR No. 71/2012, under Sections
308/34 of the IPC, at police station Usman Pur, Delhi. The aforesaid FIR was got registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against petitioners.
Petitioners are seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the subject matter of FIR in question stands amicably and mutually resolved between the parties in terms of Memorandum of Understanding /
2013:DHC:3945 Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 2 Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B).
Notice.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.1-State accepts notice and submits that respondents No. 2 & 3 are present in the Court and on the basis of identify proof furnished by them, they have been identified to be the first informant/ complainant and injured in the FIR in question.
Mr. Mohd. Asfar Heyat Warsi, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 and has placed on record his vakalatnama/
Power of Attorney. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 on instructions submits that besides the present FIR, cross FIR NO. 121/2002, under Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC was also got registered at police station Karawal Nagar, Delhi at the instance of petitioner No.1 pertaining to the incident in question, which has not yet been got quashed in terms of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding /
Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B). Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that petition for quashing of FIR NO. 121/2002 would be moved by them within four weeks.
Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that petitioners are ready to cooperate with respondents in quashing of FIR
No. 121/2002, under Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Karawal Nagar, Delhi and an undertaking to this effect by way of affidavit would be placed on record within a week.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that if petitioners cooperate in the quashing of cross FIR No. 121/2002 in terms
Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 3 of Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B), then they have no objection to the quashing of FIR 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:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
Since the subject matter of FIR stands settled between the parties in terms of Memorandum of Understanding / Compromise Deed of 14th May, 2012 (Annexure-B) and both sides are agreeing to abide by its terms and conditions in true letter and spirit, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with these proceedings.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 71/2012, under
Sections 308/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Usman Pur, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners subject to their filing affidavit within a week to the effect that they would cooperate respondents No. 2 & 3 in getting FIR No. 121/2002, under
Crl. M.C. No. 2985/2013 Page 4 Sections 324/ 341/ 506/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Karawal
Nagar, Delhi quashed and depositing cost of `15,000/- each with the
Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within four weeks. Needless to say that respondents No. 2 & 3 shall also file abide by their undertaking of moving quashing petition pertaining to FIR No. 121/2002 within four weeks.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2013 r
JUDGMENT