Full Text
A-5
% 23.03.2010
Present: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Counsel for the petitioner with petitioner in person.
Mr. R.N. Vats , Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Inspector Manoj Kumar.
Mr. Sangmitra Sawant, Mr. Depak Agarwal, Ms. Shweta Bharti, Counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant with complainant in person.
+ CrI. M.C. No. 1676/2009 & CrI.M.A. No. 6075/2009
*
JUDGMENT
1. The subject matter of FIR No. 404 of 2008, under Sections 420/467/471/448/380/201/120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi, is a dispute pertaining to possession of a commercial property i.e. Shop No. 12, DDA Market, E-Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi. It is stated by both the sides that now this dispute stands resolved and both sides make a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question.
2. Respondent No.2/ complainant is present in person with Mr. Sangmitra Sawant, Advocate. He has been identified to be the first-informant/ complainant of the FIR in question by Inspector Manoj Kumar, Investigating Officer of this case. Petitioner in person has been identified to be the accused of the FIR in question by the Investigating Officer of this case. Settlement of this dispute has been arrived at voluntarily, mutually and amicably by the parties vide 'Memorandum of Crl M.C. No. 1676of2009 Page 1 2010:DHC:7351 Settlement' of 21^*^ May, 2009 and the contents of this settlement have been affirmed by respondent No.2/ complainant as well as by the petitioner/accused. The identity proof of the parties is on record. Respondent No. 2 states that he has no grievance against the petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.
3. Pertinent observations of the Apex Court in 'Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab' (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 are as under "We need to emphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
4. Since this commercial dispute between the parties stands mutually and amicably resolved, no useful purpose would be served in continuance with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. Resultantly, FIR No. 404 of 2008, under Sections 420/467/471/448/380/201/120-B of the IPG, registered Crl. M.C. No. 1676 of2009 /6 at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi, and proceedings emanating there-from stands quashed qua the petitioner.
5. This petition and pending application stands accordingly disposed of. il Gaur, J. March 23, 2010 rs CrlM.C.No.l676of2009 Page 3