Full Text
Translation output
$-22 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 953/2013
VINAY KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ramvir Singh, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 953/2013
VINAY KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ramvir Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector Ratnu Oram, Police Station Nand Nagri,Delhi.
Mr.C.P.Singh, Advocate for complainant - Manju
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
Sub-Inspector Ratnu Oram, Police Station Nand Nagri,Delhi.
Mr.C.P.Singh, Advocate for complainant - Manju
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.03.2013 In this petition, quashing of FIR No. 432/2004, under Sections
406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought on the ground that the subject matter 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 on 13^^ December, 2012.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2 is represented through Counsel.
Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page i 2013:DHC:7967 W' Mr. C.P.Singh, Advocate, submits that respondent No.2, who is the first-informant/complainant ofthe FIR in question is present in Court and on her instructions, he affirms factum of settlement {Annexure P-2) arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2 in Delhi Mediation
Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and states that divorce by mutual consent has already been obtained by the parties. Respondent
No.2/Complainant is identified as first informant ofFIR in question by SI
Ratnu Oram, Police Station Nand Nagri, 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 suirives so, she has no objection to the quashing ofFIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, byobserving asunder:-
Resolution ofa dispute by way of a compromise between' two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full ejfect 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 settledalthough 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 andpeace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page2 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 ofFIR in question, would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 432/2004, under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of. slUNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08,2013 vn Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page 3
08.03.2013 In this petition, quashing of FIR No. 432/2004, under Sections
406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought on the ground that the subject matter 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 on 13^^ December, 2012.
Notice.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2 is represented through Counsel.
Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page i 2013:DHC:7967 W' Mr. C.P.Singh, Advocate, submits that respondent No.2, who is the first-informant/complainant ofthe FIR in question is present in Court and on her instructions, he affirms factum of settlement {Annexure P-2) arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2 in Delhi Mediation
Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and states that divorce by mutual consent has already been obtained by the parties. Respondent
No.2/Complainant is identified as first informant ofFIR in question by SI
Ratnu Oram, Police Station Nand Nagri, 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 suirives so, she has no objection to the quashing ofFIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, byobserving asunder:-
Resolution ofa dispute by way of a compromise between' two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full ejfect 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 settledalthough 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 andpeace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page2 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 ofFIR in question, would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 432/2004, under
Sections 406/498A/34 IPG, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi and proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of. slUNIL GAUR)
Judge MARCH 08,2013 vn Crl.M.C.No.953/2013 Page 3
JUDGMENT