Full Text
Translation output
I f HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.rCRL^ 623/2013 JAIPRAKASH & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.N. Singh, Advocate with petitioners in person
Through: Mr. H.N. Singh, Advocate with petitioners in person
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. PawanSharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.1- State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma & Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates with SI Kailash RespondentsNo. 2 to 4 in person.
W.P.rCRL^ 625/2013 SRI PRAKASH & ORS. Petitioner
Through: Mr. AkshayKumar Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person
Through: Mr. PawanSharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.1- State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma & Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates with SI Kailash RespondentsNo. 2 to 4 in person.
W.P.rCRL^ 625/2013 SRI PRAKASH & ORS. Petitioner
Through: Mr. AkshayKumar Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.l- State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma & Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates with SI Kailash.
W.P.(CrL) No.623/2013 Page1 W.P.(CrL} No.625/2013
2013:DHC:8079 RespondentsNo. 2 & 3 in person.
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent
No.l- State with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma & Mohd.
Adnan, Advocates with SI Kailash.
W.P.(CrL) No.623/2013 Page1 W.P.(CrL} No.625/2013
2013:DHC:8079 RespondentsNo. 2 & 3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
22.04.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of Complaint case
No. 39/1 under Sections 542/427/506/34 of the IPC [in W.P.(Crl.)
No.623/2013] and FIR No. 40/2000 under Sections 326/447/452/34ofthe
IPC registered at police station Mehrauli, Delhi [in W.P.(Crl.)
No.625/2013] is sought by petitioners.
Counsel for petitioners states that petitioner No.l in both the above captioned two petitions happen to be real brothers and due to misunderstanding, some dispute arose between them and their family members, which culminated into registration of the aforesaid complaint and FIR in question and that now with the intervention of family members and friends, inter se dispute has been amicably resolved in terms ofMemorandum ofUnderstanding of19*'' February, 2013.
Learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent-State submits that the above noted complaint and FIR are cross cases, whose subject matter stands settled vide Memorandum ofUnderstanding of19^ February, 2013 arrived at between the parties and the factum of settlement has been got
Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent-State also submits that Jai Praksh, who is the complainant of Complaint No. 39/1 and Sri Prakash, who is
W.P.(Crl) No.623/2013 Page 2 W.P.CCrL) No.625/2013 the first informant of FIR No.40/2000 and the injured/respondent No.3
Smt. Prakash Wati arepresent in the Court, who have been identified by
SI Kailash, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Sri Prakash, Jai Prakash and Prakashwati, present in the Court submits that the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 19*^
February, 2013 have been arrived at of their own free will, which has been already acted upon and they affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-noted complaint and FIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
22.04.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of Complaint case
No. 39/1 under Sections 542/427/506/34 of the IPC [in W.P.(Crl.)
No.623/2013] and FIR No. 40/2000 under Sections 326/447/452/34ofthe
IPC registered at police station Mehrauli, Delhi [in W.P.(Crl.)
No.625/2013] is sought by petitioners.
Counsel for petitioners states that petitioner No.l in both the above captioned two petitions happen to be real brothers and due to misunderstanding, some dispute arose between them and their family members, which culminated into registration of the aforesaid complaint and FIR in question and that now with the intervention of family members and friends, inter se dispute has been amicably resolved in terms ofMemorandum ofUnderstanding of19*'' February, 2013.
Learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent-State submits that the above noted complaint and FIR are cross cases, whose subject matter stands settled vide Memorandum ofUnderstanding of19^ February, 2013 arrived at between the parties and the factum of settlement has been got
Standing Counsel (Crl.) for respondent-State also submits that Jai Praksh, who is the complainant of Complaint No. 39/1 and Sri Prakash, who is
W.P.(Crl) No.623/2013 Page 2 W.P.CCrL) No.625/2013 the first informant of FIR No.40/2000 and the injured/respondent No.3
Smt. Prakash Wati arepresent in the Court, who have been identified by
SI Kailash, Investigating Officer ofthis case.
Sri Prakash, Jai Prakash and Prakashwati, present in the Court submits that the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 19*^
February, 2013 have been arrived at of their own free will, which has been already acted upon and they affirm contents of their affidavits placed on record giving no objection to the quashing of afore-noted complaint and FIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Courthas 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 ofprocess of law 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 of the afore-noted complaint and FIR pertains to a family dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolved in terms ofMemorandum ofUnderstanding of19*^
W.P.(CrI.) No.623/2013 Page 3 W.P.(Crl.)No.625/2013
•V
February, 2013 to bring cordiality and peace amongst the family members, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the complaint and
FIR in question.
Accordingly, Complaint case No. 39/1, under Sections 542/ 427/
506/34 of the IPC [in W.P.(Crl.) No.623/2013] and FIR No. 40/2000 under Sections 326/447/452/34 of the IPC registered at police station
Mehrauli, Delhi [in W.P.(Crl.) No.625/2013] are quashed qua petitioner- accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 22,2013 rs W.P.(CrL) No.623/2013 Page 4
W.P.(Crl.) No.625/2013
W.P.(CrI.) No.623/2013 Page 3 W.P.(Crl.)No.625/2013
•V
February, 2013 to bring cordiality and peace amongst the family members, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash the complaint and
FIR in question.
Accordingly, Complaint case No. 39/1, under Sections 542/ 427/
506/34 of the IPC [in W.P.(Crl.) No.623/2013] and FIR No. 40/2000 under Sections 326/447/452/34 of the IPC registered at police station
Mehrauli, Delhi [in W.P.(Crl.) No.625/2013] are quashed qua petitioner- accused persons.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
5UNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 22,2013 rs W.P.(CrL) No.623/2013 Page 4
W.P.(Crl.) No.625/2013
JUDGMENT