Full Text
Translation output
$-27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 973/2013
NAVAL SISODI & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 973/2013
NAVAL SISODI & ANR.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
Tlirough;
Petitioners
Through: Mr.Surender Kumar and Mr.Gaurav Kaushik, Advocates
Respondents Mr. Sunil Shaima, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
W/ASI Sushma, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi
Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Choudhary, Advocate for complainant/ respondent No. 2 with complainant in person.
Tlirough;
Petitioners
Through: Mr.Surender Kumar and Mr.Gaurav Kaushik, Advocates
Respondents Mr. Sunil Shaima, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
W/ASI Sushma, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi
Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Choudhary, Advocate for complainant/ respondent No. 2 with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.03.2013 Crl.M.A.No. 3040/2013 This is an application on behalf of petitioners for condoning the delay of 26 daysin re-filing the instant petition.
The application is allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay of26 days is condoned.
The application stands disposedof.
Crl.M.C.No. 973/2013 In this petition quashing of FIR No. 237/2009, under Sections
Crl.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7312 406/498A/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that the subjectmatter of this FIR is a matrimonial dispute, which stands mutually and amicably resolved with respondent
No.2 and decree of divorce has already been granted by the matrimonial
Court.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2 is represented through Counsel.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Choudhary, Advocate, submits that respondent No.2, who is the first-informant/complainant of the FIR in question is present in Court and on her instructions, he affirms factum of settlement (Annexure B) arrived at between petitioners and respondent
No.2 and states that divorce by mutual consent has already beenobtained by the parties. Respondent No.2/Complainant is identified as first informant of FIR in question by W/ASI Sushma, Police Station Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the settlement arrived at between the parties has been already acted upon. Respondent No.2/ complainant, who is present in the Court, states that she has received the entire settled amount and now, no dispute with petitioners survives so, she has noobjection to thequashing ofFIRin question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized theneed of amicable resolution of disputes in cases likethe instantone, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate
Crl.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 2 and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
"Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Considering the fact that the contesting parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, which is subject matter of FIR in question, continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question, would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 237/2009, under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed qua petitioners with a rider that the child of petitioner-husband and respondent -wife would have right to maintenance etc., upon attaining age ofmajority.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
JNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08, 2013 vn CrI.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 3
08.03.2013 Crl.M.A.No. 3040/2013 This is an application on behalf of petitioners for condoning the delay of 26 daysin re-filing the instant petition.
The application is allowed for the reasons stated therein and delay of26 days is condoned.
The application stands disposedof.
Crl.M.C.No. 973/2013 In this petition quashing of FIR No. 237/2009, under Sections
Crl.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7312 406/498A/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that the subjectmatter of this FIR is a matrimonial dispute, which stands mutually and amicably resolved with respondent
No.2 and decree of divorce has already been granted by the matrimonial
Court.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2 is represented through Counsel.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Choudhary, Advocate, submits that respondent No.2, who is the first-informant/complainant of the FIR in question is present in Court and on her instructions, he affirms factum of settlement (Annexure B) arrived at between petitioners and respondent
No.2 and states that divorce by mutual consent has already beenobtained by the parties. Respondent No.2/Complainant is identified as first informant of FIR in question by W/ASI Sushma, Police Station Uttam
Nagar, Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the settlement arrived at between the parties has been already acted upon. Respondent No.2/ complainant, who is present in the Court, states that she has received the entire settled amount and now, no dispute with petitioners survives so, she has noobjection to thequashing ofFIRin question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized theneed of amicable resolution of disputes in cases likethe instantone, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate
Crl.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 2 and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."
"Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Considering the fact that the contesting parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, which is subject matter of FIR in question, continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question, would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 237/2009, under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed qua petitioners with a rider that the child of petitioner-husband and respondent -wife would have right to maintenance etc., upon attaining age ofmajority.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
JNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08, 2013 vn CrI.M.C.No.973/2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT