Full Text
Translation output
$-27 & 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRT..M.C. 1340/2013
BHRAMPRAKASH&ORS. , Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate
CRT..M.C. 1340/2013
BHRAMPRAKASH&ORS. , Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NOT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Pradeep Kumar
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Pradeep Kumar
CRT..M.C. 1341/2013
ANIL & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate -
ANIL & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate -
VERSUS
STATE NOT OF DELHI &ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Pradeep Kumar
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Pradeep Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/o 08.04.2013 Crl.M.A.No.4210/2013 Tu/S 482 Cr.P.C.^ in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013
Crl.M.A.No.4211/2013 fu/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& Page 1 Crl.M.C. No.1341/2013
2013:DHC:6786 Crl. M.C. No. 1340/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013
With the consent of both the sides, above-captioned two petitions are being disposed ofby this common order. FIR No. 208/2012 was got registered at the instance ofrespondent No.2- Mehar Chand in Crl. M.C.
No.1340/2013 and cross FIR No. 209/2012 was got registered at the instance one- Brahm Praksh, who is respondent No.2 in Crl. M.C. NO. 1341/2013 for offence under Sections 323/308/34 of the IPC, at police stationFatehpurBeri,Delhi.
At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners' submits that
^ while filing these petitions, copy ofrespective FIRs have been wrongly placed in cross file due to inadvertence. That is to say, copy of FIR NO. 208/2012 has been wrongly filed in Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013 and copy of
FIR No. 209/2012 has been wrongly filed in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013.
Learned counsel for petitioners has produced another set ofcopy ofFIRs, which aredirected tobeplaced intheir respective files.
Petitioners in the above-captioned two petitions are stated to be residents of same village and known to each other and due to some
^ misunderstanding on trivial issues, an unfortunate incident took place on
11^ August, 2012, which culminated into registration of aforementioned two cross FIRs.
Learned counsel for petitioners points out that with the intervention ofwell wishers and senior respectable members ofthe village, both the sides have amicably resolved their misunderstanding and settled their disputes in terms of Deed of Compromise of IS**" February, 2013
(Annexure P-2), on the basis of which quashing of these two FIRs is
Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& ^ Crl M.C. No.1341/2013 sought in these petitions.
Upon notice, Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that accused as well as complainant party in these two petitions are present in the Court and on the basis of identity proof furnished by them, SI Pradeep Kumar, has identified them.
Mehar Chand, who is respondent No.2/ complainant of FIR NO. 208/2012 in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013 and Brahm Prakash, who is respondent No.2/ complaint of FIR No. 209/2012 in Crl. M.C. NO. 1341/2013 as well as other petitioners in the above captioned two petitions present in the Court affirm contents oftheir affidavits placed on record and submit that the misunderstanding has now been cleared and that they want that these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences 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 thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit issatisfied thaton theface ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted
Crl. M.C. No. 1340/2013& Page 3 Crl. M.a No.1341/2013 and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
Considering the fact that the misunderstanding inter se parties has now been cleared and parties have mutually and amicably resolved their dispute in terms of Deed of Compromise of 18^ February, 2013
(Annexure P-2) , to restore cordiality and peace amongst the parties, I find that the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs deserve to be brought to an end.
Consequentially, these two petitions are allowed and FIR NO. 208/2012 [in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013] FIR No. 209/2012 [in Crl. M.C.
No. 1341/2013] both registered under Sections 323/308/34 at police station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions are accordingly disposed of ilL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2013 rs Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& ^ Crl.M.C. No.1341/2013
ORDER o/o 08.04.2013 Crl.M.A.No.4210/2013 Tu/S 482 Cr.P.C.^ in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013
Crl.M.A.No.4211/2013 fu/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& Page 1 Crl.M.C. No.1341/2013
2013:DHC:6786 Crl. M.C. No. 1340/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013
With the consent of both the sides, above-captioned two petitions are being disposed ofby this common order. FIR No. 208/2012 was got registered at the instance ofrespondent No.2- Mehar Chand in Crl. M.C.
No.1340/2013 and cross FIR No. 209/2012 was got registered at the instance one- Brahm Praksh, who is respondent No.2 in Crl. M.C. NO. 1341/2013 for offence under Sections 323/308/34 of the IPC, at police stationFatehpurBeri,Delhi.
At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners' submits that
^ while filing these petitions, copy ofrespective FIRs have been wrongly placed in cross file due to inadvertence. That is to say, copy of FIR NO. 208/2012 has been wrongly filed in Crl. M.C. No. 1341/2013 and copy of
FIR No. 209/2012 has been wrongly filed in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013.
Learned counsel for petitioners has produced another set ofcopy ofFIRs, which aredirected tobeplaced intheir respective files.
Petitioners in the above-captioned two petitions are stated to be residents of same village and known to each other and due to some
^ misunderstanding on trivial issues, an unfortunate incident took place on
11^ August, 2012, which culminated into registration of aforementioned two cross FIRs.
Learned counsel for petitioners points out that with the intervention ofwell wishers and senior respectable members ofthe village, both the sides have amicably resolved their misunderstanding and settled their disputes in terms of Deed of Compromise of IS**" February, 2013
(Annexure P-2), on the basis of which quashing of these two FIRs is
Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& ^ Crl M.C. No.1341/2013 sought in these petitions.
Upon notice, Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that accused as well as complainant party in these two petitions are present in the Court and on the basis of identity proof furnished by them, SI Pradeep Kumar, has identified them.
Mehar Chand, who is respondent No.2/ complainant of FIR NO. 208/2012 in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013 and Brahm Prakash, who is respondent No.2/ complaint of FIR No. 209/2012 in Crl. M.C. NO. 1341/2013 as well as other petitioners in the above captioned two petitions present in the Court affirm contents oftheir affidavits placed on record and submit that the misunderstanding has now been cleared and that they want that these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences 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 thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit issatisfied thaton theface ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood ofthe offender being convicted
Crl. M.C. No. 1340/2013& Page 3 Crl. M.a No.1341/2013 and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
Considering the fact that the misunderstanding inter se parties has now been cleared and parties have mutually and amicably resolved their dispute in terms of Deed of Compromise of 18^ February, 2013
(Annexure P-2) , to restore cordiality and peace amongst the parties, I find that the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs deserve to be brought to an end.
Consequentially, these two petitions are allowed and FIR NO. 208/2012 [in Crl. M.C. No.1340/2013] FIR No. 209/2012 [in Crl. M.C.
No. 1341/2013] both registered under Sections 323/308/34 at police station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions are accordingly disposed of ilL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2013 rs Crl M.C. No. 1340/2013& ^ Crl.M.C. No.1341/2013
JUDGMENT