Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5864/2022
NAVEEN SAINI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.D. V. Goyal, Adv.
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with Inspector Bineet Kr.
Pandey, PS Mundka
Date of Decision: 24th August, 2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, a complaint was registered on the complaint of Respondent No.2 namely Shishpal alleging therein that on 12/01/2018 due to some minor misunderstanding, a quarrel took place between the son of the complainant and the sons of Rakesh namely Bablu and Naveen. After complainant came to know about this quarrel and went to the house of Rakesh and explained everything. Thereafter, Rakesh had assured the complainantthat he will pacify the matter. On 17/1/2018 about 8.00 P.M., Naresh along with the complainant’s son were returning from Sai Mandir, Tikri Kalan. Naresh left the son of the complainant in front of Bhagat Singh Park. While going home, the sonsof Rakesh i.e. Bablu and Naveen reached the spot and started beating the complainant’s son. When the wife and brother of the complainant got to know about this they reached the spot, but the abovesaid persons began quarreling and beating them too.The wife of the complainant received injuries on her left hand and in the quarrel the wife of the complainant hadlost her gold chain and earrings. His brother had also received injuries and his ring was also stolen by the accused persons. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered. The chargesheet, in this case, has already been filed and the matter is pending before the Learned Trial Court,Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both parties have amicably resolved all their disputes with the help and intervention of well-wishers and common friends. The parties have reached a memorandum of understanding dated 28.10.2022 on the following terms and conditions: “1. That the compromise deed came between the parties with some respectable people and elders of the society.
2. That the second party had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the first parties in the presence of the elders of the society and family members.
3. That the first party has undertakes to that they not file the case/complaint/ suit against the second party in future.
4. That both the parties have compromised with each other without any pressure, coercion and on their own free will.
5. That the first parties undertake to give their statement in the concerned Court / Hon’ble High Court at the time of quashing of above said FIR bearing no. 27/2018, U/s 323/324/34 IPC P.S. Mundka, Delhi.
6. That after compromise both the parties shall not interfere in the life of each other in future and no party shall file any complaint and case etc. against each other before any competent court of law and any other authority in respect of the any issue.”
3. Petitioners Naveen Saini and Bablu Saini are present in Court in person. The complainants are also present in person. All the parties have duly been identified by I.O.Further. Complainants submit that they have entered the settlement voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion, and in view of the settlement agreement, theyhave no objection if the case FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPCand all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
4. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that as per the Investigating Officer, there is no other dispute between the parties.
5. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC, has recognized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and inter-alia held as under:
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves."
6. Since the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the parties have settled all the disputes amicably, in the interest of justice it would be better to put a quietus to the dispute. Such disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony, or the society as such. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement.
7. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances,and in view of the spirit and ratio laid down in catena judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present case FIR No 27/2018 registered at PS Munkda, Delhi under Sections 323/324/34 IPCand all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
8. The present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J AUGUST 24, 2023