Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1077/2013
DHARAM SINGH & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 1077/2013
DHARAM SINGH & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. SunilSharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Umed Singh Mr. Dharmender Rana &
Mr. Yogender Dagar, Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 4
Through: Mr. SunilSharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Umed Singh Mr. Dharmender Rana &
Mr. Yogender Dagar, Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 4
CRL.M.C. 1086/2013
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dharmender Rana & Mr. Yogender Dagar, Advocates
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dharmender Rana & Mr. Yogender Dagar, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI «& ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Umed Singh Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No. 1-State with SI Umed Singh Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Crl M.C. No.1077/2013 Page 1
CrL M.C. No.1086/2013 2013:DHC:7950
15.03.2013
♦Vi
The above captionedtwo petitions arise out of one incident of 30 November, 2013, when a quarrel took place amongst petitioners and respondents of these petitions. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.1090/2003, under Sections 341/323/325/506/34 of the IPC and cross FIR NO. 1087/2003, under Sections 341/326/506 of the IPC was got registered at
Police Station Nagloi, Delhi quashing of which is sought by parties in these petitions on the ground that inter se dispute betweenthe parties has been resolved through Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondentNo.1-State. Mr. Sunil Ahuja and Mr. Dharemender Rana, Advocates, accept notice on behalfof respective parties in both the above petitions. Counsel representing both sides submit that parties are present in person.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State submits that on the basis of identity proof furnished by the parties, they have been identified as petitioners and respondents in the above captioned petitions by SI Umed Singh, Investigating Officerof this case.
Parties present in court submit that the misunderstanding has now been cleared and now no dispute survives, so these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303
Apex Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
CrI. M.C. No.1077/2013 Page 2 Crl M.C. No.1086/2013 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 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 itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
Considering that the subject matter of the afore-captioned two petitions stands mutually and amicably resolved between the parties through Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No.1090/2003, under Sections 341/323/ 325/
506/34 of the IPC and cross FIR No.1087/2003, under Sections
341/326/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Nagloi, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
- Both the afore-captioned petitions are disposed ofaccordingly.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 15, 2013 rs Crl M.C. No.1077/2013 Page 3
CrL M.C. No.1086/2013
CrL M.C. No.1086/2013 2013:DHC:7950
15.03.2013
♦Vi
The above captionedtwo petitions arise out of one incident of 30 November, 2013, when a quarrel took place amongst petitioners and respondents of these petitions. Pursuant thereto, FIR No.1090/2003, under Sections 341/323/325/506/34 of the IPC and cross FIR NO. 1087/2003, under Sections 341/326/506 of the IPC was got registered at
Police Station Nagloi, Delhi quashing of which is sought by parties in these petitions on the ground that inter se dispute betweenthe parties has been resolved through Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondentNo.1-State. Mr. Sunil Ahuja and Mr. Dharemender Rana, Advocates, accept notice on behalfof respective parties in both the above petitions. Counsel representing both sides submit that parties are present in person.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State submits that on the basis of identity proof furnished by the parties, they have been identified as petitioners and respondents in the above captioned petitions by SI Umed Singh, Investigating Officerof this case.
Parties present in court submit that the misunderstanding has now been cleared and now no dispute survives, so these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303
Apex Courthas recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
CrI. M.C. No.1077/2013 Page 2 Crl M.C. No.1086/2013 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 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 itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
Considering that the subject matter of the afore-captioned two petitions stands mutually and amicably resolved between the parties through Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No.1090/2003, under Sections 341/323/ 325/
506/34 of the IPC and cross FIR No.1087/2003, under Sections
341/326/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Nagloi, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
- Both the afore-captioned petitions are disposed ofaccordingly.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 15, 2013 rs Crl M.C. No.1077/2013 Page 3
CrL M.C. No.1086/2013
JUDGMENT