Full Text
Translation output
$-34 & 36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 498/2013
FAHAD HAROON & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. F. Haq, Mr. Momin Faza! and Mr. Khalida Masroof, Advocates
W.P.(CRL) 498/2013
FAHAD HAROON & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. F. Haq, Mr. Momin Faza! and Mr. Khalida Masroof, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Cr!.), alongwith
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates a!ongwith
SI Raj Pal Singh, P.S. Jamia Nagar
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Cr!.), alongwith
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates a!ongwith
SI Raj Pal Singh, P.S. Jamia Nagar
W.P.(CRL) 506/2013
GULFAM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. F. Haq, Mr. Momin Fazal and Mr. Khalida Masroof, Advocates
GULFAM & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. F. Haq, Mr. Momin Fazal and Mr. Khalida Masroof, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Cr!.), a!ongwith
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates alongwith
ASI Bani Singh, P.S. Jamia Nagar W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:7538
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Cr!.), a!ongwith
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates alongwith
ASI Bani Singh, P.S. Jamia Nagar W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:7538
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIJNIL GAUR
05.04.20 13 In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.940/2012 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 is sought whereas in the above-captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.978/2012 under
Sections 323/452/34 IPC registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi is sought.
Respondent No.2-Gulfam S/o Mohd. Eliyaas is the first-informant of FIR
No.940/2012 whereas Fahad Haroon S/o Mohd. Maroon is the first- informant of FIR No.978/2012.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the accused and the complainant party are students and due to misunderstanding the aforesaid two FIRs were registered and now, the misunderstanding has been cleared and the compromise arrived at between the parties has been reduced in writing vide compromise deed
0f25th February, 2013 and that accused as well as complainant party are present in the Court.
Notice.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (Cr!.) for respondent
No.1-State, accepts notice and states that respondent No.2 of the above- captioned two petitions have been identified by the respective
Investigating Officers of these two FIR cases to be the first informant and petitioners of these two petitions as accused persons are present in the
Court.
Petitioner-accused and respondent-first informant of the FIRs in
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 2 question affirm the contents of compromise deed of
25th February, 2013 and submit that since misunderstanding between them has been cleared, therefore, these proceedings be brought to an end.
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:-
05.04.20 13 In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.940/2012 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 is sought whereas in the above-captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.978/2012 under
Sections 323/452/34 IPC registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi is sought.
Respondent No.2-Gulfam S/o Mohd. Eliyaas is the first-informant of FIR
No.940/2012 whereas Fahad Haroon S/o Mohd. Maroon is the first- informant of FIR No.978/2012.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the accused and the complainant party are students and due to misunderstanding the aforesaid two FIRs were registered and now, the misunderstanding has been cleared and the compromise arrived at between the parties has been reduced in writing vide compromise deed
0f25th February, 2013 and that accused as well as complainant party are present in the Court.
Notice.
Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (Cr!.) for respondent
No.1-State, accepts notice and states that respondent No.2 of the above- captioned two petitions have been identified by the respective
Investigating Officers of these two FIR cases to be the first informant and petitioners of these two petitions as accused persons are present in the
Court.
Petitioner-accused and respondent-first informant of the FIRs in
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 2 question affirm the contents of compromise deed of
25th February, 2013 and submit that since misunderstanding between them has been cleared, therefore, these proceedings be brought to an end.
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 ofjustice 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 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 that both the FIRs are said to be the outcome of misunderstanding, which now stands cleared and in view of compromise deed of 25th February, 2013, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of aforesaid two FIRs would be an exercise in futility.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submit that a sum of
10,000/- would be deposited with the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee, New Delhi within a period of two weeks towards the cost of these proceedings.
Let it be so done.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.940/2012 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC and FIR No.978/2012 under Section
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 3 323/452/34 IPC both registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed qua petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations, both these petitions are disposed of
Copy of this order be given dasti.
SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 059 2013 S W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 4
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submit that a sum of
10,000/- would be deposited with the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee, New Delhi within a period of two weeks towards the cost of these proceedings.
Let it be so done.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.940/2012 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC and FIR No.978/2012 under Section
W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 3 323/452/34 IPC both registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed qua petitioners.
With the aforesaid observations, both these petitions are disposed of
Copy of this order be given dasti.
SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 059 2013 S W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 498/2013 & 506/2013 Page 4
JUDGMENT