Full Text
Translation output
$-33 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 375/2013
RAJENDER DASS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharmender Arya, Advocate
W.P.(CRL) 375/2013
RAJENDER DASS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharmender Arya, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR
Through:
Respondents Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan, & Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No.1-State along with Mr. Jaivir Singh, SI, PS
Fatehpur Beri Mr. Praween Gupta, Advocate with
Respondent No.2-in-person
Through:
Respondents Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Richa Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Adnan, & Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No.1-State along with Mr. Jaivir Singh, SI, PS
Fatehpur Beri Mr. Praween Gupta, Advocate with
Respondent No.2-in-person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.03.2013 Crl.M.A.No. 3039/2013 (Exemption')
Allowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 375/2013 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 272/2012, under Sections
420/468/471/120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi on the basis of Settlement/Agreement {Annexed with the petition) arrived at between theparties in the Mediation Centre, TisHazari Courts, W.P.CrI.No.375/2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:8069 r Delhi on 15* February, 2013.
Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Couisel (Crl.) accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Respondent No.2/complainant is present in the court and is represented through counsel. SI, Jaivir Singh, PS
Fatehpur Beri, Delhi is the Investigating Officer of this case and he identifies respondent No. 2 as complainant/first-informant of the instant
I
FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the parties have settled their dispute in the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question. Respondent No.2-Praniod Kumar Tyagi, has been handed over a pay order No. 686696 dated 26* February, 2013 for
^2,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, the balance amount of the settled amount, which he has accepted and submits that the terms of Settlement-
Agreement have been acted upon and now he has no objection ifthis FIR is quashed.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"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 of process 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceedings. "
W.P.CrI.No.375/2012 Page 2 In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it is deemed appropriate to accept settlement arrived at between the parties and accordingly this petition is allowed and FIR No. 272/2012, under Sections
420/468/471/120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therejfrom are quashed qua petitioner.
MARCH 08,2013 vn W.P.Crl.No.375/2012 JNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3
08.03.2013 Crl.M.A.No. 3039/2013 (Exemption')
Allowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 375/2013 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 272/2012, under Sections
420/468/471/120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi on the basis of Settlement/Agreement {Annexed with the petition) arrived at between theparties in the Mediation Centre, TisHazari Courts, W.P.CrI.No.375/2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:8069 r Delhi on 15* February, 2013.
Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Couisel (Crl.) accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Respondent No.2/complainant is present in the court and is represented through counsel. SI, Jaivir Singh, PS
Fatehpur Beri, Delhi is the Investigating Officer of this case and he identifies respondent No. 2 as complainant/first-informant of the instant
I
FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the parties have settled their dispute in the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question. Respondent No.2-Praniod Kumar Tyagi, has been handed over a pay order No. 686696 dated 26* February, 2013 for
^2,00,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, the balance amount of the settled amount, which he has accepted and submits that the terms of Settlement-
Agreement have been acted upon and now he has no objection ifthis FIR is quashed.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"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 of process 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceedings. "
W.P.CrI.No.375/2012 Page 2 In the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it is deemed appropriate to accept settlement arrived at between the parties and accordingly this petition is allowed and FIR No. 272/2012, under Sections
420/468/471/120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and proceedings emanating therejfrom are quashed qua petitioner.
MARCH 08,2013 vn W.P.Crl.No.375/2012 JNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3
JUDGMENT