Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1239/2012 &CRL.M.A. No.15948/2012
MITHLESH GAUTAM Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.N.Pandey, Advocate
W.P.(CRL) 1239/2012 &CRL.M.A. No.15948/2012
MITHLESH GAUTAM Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.N.Pandey, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS
Through:
Respondents Ms. Richa Oberoi proxy counsel for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for
State Mr. Deepak Bashta, Advocate for Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Through:
Respondents Ms. Richa Oberoi proxy counsel for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for
State Mr. Deepak Bashta, Advocate for Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.03.2013 Quashing of FIR No.76/2012 under Section 135 Electricity Act registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi is sought on the ground that subject matter ofFIR stands settled with respondent No.2 inthe Continuous Lok
Adalat. Counsel for contesting respondent No.2 affirms the factum of settlement and states that now no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR inquestion.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe instantone, by observing as under:-
"In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
Crl.M.C. No. 122912^)12 Page 1 2013:DHC:7497 4* ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement andcompromise between the victim andthe 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 criminalproceedings. "
In light ofthe order of6^ March, 2013 ofContinuous Lok Adalat and the fact that contesting respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question, I find that continuance of the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question is in futility. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 76/2012 under Section 135 Electricity Act registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom qua petitioner are hereby quashed.
MARCH 08,2013 mm ILGAUR,J Crl. M.C. No. 1239/2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:7497
08.03.2013 Quashing of FIR No.76/2012 under Section 135 Electricity Act registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi is sought on the ground that subject matter ofFIR stands settled with respondent No.2 inthe Continuous Lok
Adalat. Counsel for contesting respondent No.2 affirms the factum of settlement and states that now no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR inquestion.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases likethe instantone, by observing as under:-
"In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
Crl.M.C. No. 122912^)12 Page 1 2013:DHC:7497 4* ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement andcompromise between the victim andthe 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 criminalproceedings. "
In light ofthe order of6^ March, 2013 ofContinuous Lok Adalat and the fact that contesting respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question, I find that continuance of the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question is in futility. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 76/2012 under Section 135 Electricity Act registered at P.S. Khyala, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom qua petitioner are hereby quashed.
MARCH 08,2013 mm ILGAUR,J Crl. M.C. No. 1239/2012 Page 2
2013:DHC:7497
JUDGMENT