Full Text
Translation output
$-34 & 37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 2187/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 8477/2013 & 8478/2013
MOHD.SAHID & ORS.
Through:
MOHD.SAHID & ORS.
Through:
VERSUS
STATE NOT OF DELHI
Through:
Petitioner Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -
State Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta
& Mr. Jitender G., Advocates for complainant (ii) CRL.M.C. 2193/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 8497/2013 & 8498/2013
KARAN KAPOOR & ORS.
Through:
Through:
Petitioner Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates
Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -
State Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta
& Mr. Jitender G., Advocates for complainant (ii) CRL.M.C. 2193/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 8497/2013 & 8498/2013
KARAN KAPOOR & ORS.
Through:
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Through:
Crl.M.C. No.2187/2013 & Crl. M.C. No. 2193/2013
Petitioners Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta
& Mr. Jitender G., Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates for complainant.
Pagel 2013:DHC:7394
Through:
Crl.M.C. No.2187/2013 & Crl. M.C. No. 2193/2013
Petitioners Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta
& Mr. Jitender G., Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates for complainant.
Pagel 2013:DHC:7394
CORAM;
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNIL GAUR
0/„ 24.05.2013
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 207/2011 under Sections 324/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIR No. 152/2011 under Sections 323/354/452/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl.
M.C. No.2193/2013] both registered at police station HazratNizamuddin, New Delhi, is sought.
Counsel for petitioners' states that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions happen to be neighbours and due to misunderstanding, some dispute arose between them and they manhandled each other and this culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs in question and that now with the intervention of elderly persons, inter se dispute has been amicably resolved in terms of
Memorandum ofSettlement of21^^ May, 2013 by the parties.
Learned Counsel for respondent-State submits that the above noted
FIRs are cross cases, whose subject matter stands settled vide
Memorandum of Settlement of 21^^ May, 2013 arrived at between the parties. The factum ofsettlementhas been already gotverifiedby learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, they have been identified as Sanjay Kapur, being the first informant ofFIRNo. 207/2011
[in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] &Mohd. Shahid, being the first-informant ofFIR No. 152/2011 [Crl. M.C. No. 2193/2013] and the injured- Satpal
SinghYadav @Goldy, Mrs. Amna @ Bobby, Sanjay Kapoor &Sanjiv m
Page 2 Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013 & ([/ this case.
Sanjay Kapur &Mohd. Shaid, who are the first-informants oftwo cross afore-noted FIRs, are present in the Court and they submit that the aforesaid Memorandum ofSettlement of21^ May, 2013 has been arrived at of their own free will, which has been already acted upon and they affirm contents oftheir affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing ofafore-noted FIRs inquestion.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe 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 ofprocess oflaw despite settlement and 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
. proceedings." Considering the fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertains to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved in terms ofMemorandum ofSettlement of21®^ May, 2013 and to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties, it would be in the interest ofjustice toquash the FIRs inquestion.
Accordingly, FIR No. 207/2011 under Sections 324/34 ofthe IPC
Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013 & 3 ^3 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIR No. 152/2011 under Sections
323/354/452/34 of the IPG [inGrl. M.G. No.2193/2013] bothregistered at police station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
MAY 24, 2013 r 5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013 & Page 4
0/„ 24.05.2013
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 207/2011 under Sections 324/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIR No. 152/2011 under Sections 323/354/452/34 ofthe IPC [in Crl.
M.C. No.2193/2013] both registered at police station HazratNizamuddin, New Delhi, is sought.
Counsel for petitioners' states that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions happen to be neighbours and due to misunderstanding, some dispute arose between them and they manhandled each other and this culminated into registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs in question and that now with the intervention of elderly persons, inter se dispute has been amicably resolved in terms of
Memorandum ofSettlement of21^^ May, 2013 by the parties.
Learned Counsel for respondent-State submits that the above noted
FIRs are cross cases, whose subject matter stands settled vide
Memorandum of Settlement of 21^^ May, 2013 arrived at between the parties. The factum ofsettlementhas been already gotverifiedby learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who submits that on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, they have been identified as Sanjay Kapur, being the first informant ofFIRNo. 207/2011
[in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] &Mohd. Shahid, being the first-informant ofFIR No. 152/2011 [Crl. M.C. No. 2193/2013] and the injured- Satpal
SinghYadav @Goldy, Mrs. Amna @ Bobby, Sanjay Kapoor &Sanjiv m
Page 2 Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013 & ([/ this case.
Sanjay Kapur &Mohd. Shaid, who are the first-informants oftwo cross afore-noted FIRs, are present in the Court and they submit that the aforesaid Memorandum ofSettlement of21^ May, 2013 has been arrived at of their own free will, which has been already acted upon and they affirm contents oftheir affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing ofafore-noted FIRs inquestion.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe 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 ofprocess oflaw despite settlement and 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
. proceedings." Considering the fact that the subject matter ofthe afore-noted FIRs pertains to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved in terms ofMemorandum ofSettlement of21®^ May, 2013 and to bring cordiality and peace amongst the parties, it would be in the interest ofjustice toquash the FIRs inquestion.
Accordingly, FIR No. 207/2011 under Sections 324/34 ofthe IPC
Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013 & 3 ^3 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIR No. 152/2011 under Sections
323/354/452/34 of the IPG [inGrl. M.G. No.2193/2013] bothregistered at police station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
MAY 24, 2013 r 5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013 & Page 4
JUDGMENT