Full Text
Translation output
$-77 & 87 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2110/2018
KULDEEP SINGH &ANR I T
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar & Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocates.
CRL.M.C. 2110/2018
KULDEEP SINGH &ANR I T
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar & Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) &ORS •
Through; Mr. Kewal Smgh Ahuja, APP for State with SI Suraj Pal, PS Keshav
Puram.
Mr. Ashwani Bhati & MR. Mohan Sharma, Advfor R-2& 3.
Through; Mr. Kewal Smgh Ahuja, APP for State with SI Suraj Pal, PS Keshav
Puram.
Mr. Ashwani Bhati & MR. Mohan Sharma, Advfor R-2& 3.
CRL.M.C. 2113/2018
PRABHU JOT KAUR@ GAGAN &ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Bhati & Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocates.
PRABHU JOT KAUR@ GAGAN &ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Bhati & Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)& ANR Respondents
Through' Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State with SI Suraj Pal, PS Keshav Puram.
Through' Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State with SI Suraj Pal, PS Keshav Puram.
CORAM: ^
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
0/„ 24.04.2018
Vide the present petition, i.e., CRL.M.C.2110/18, the petitionersseekquashing ofthe FIRNo. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram
0/„ 24.04.2018
Vide the present petition, i.e., CRL.M.C.2110/18, the petitionersseekquashing ofthe FIRNo. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram
CRL.M.C. 2110/2018
2018:DHC:8448 "V- under Sections 323/506/509/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition seeking quashing of the cross FIR, i.e., FIR No. 660/17, PS
Keshav Puram under Sections 323/506/509/354/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is CRL.M.C.2113/18 which is also listed for the day and proceedings of both the petitions have thus been taken up together.
The petitioners arrayed in CRL.M.C.2110/18 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram are petitioners Kuldeep
Singh and Krishan Lai @Mintu and the complainant ofthe FIR NO. 660/17, PS Keshav Puram is wife ofMr. Kuldeep Singh and the said
Mr. Kuldeep Singh is arrayed as the petitioner no. 1as an accused in relationto FIR No. 661/17, PS KeshavPuram.
Abare perusal of the averments made in both the petitions indicate that the parties in both the petitions are neighbours and have arrived at a settlement mutually vide a settlement agreement dated
16.01.2018 during the course of the proceedings in bail application no. 132/18 and bail application no. 133/18 referred to the Delhi
Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The respondent nos. 2&3 in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2 m
CRL.M.C.2113/18 are signatories to the said Memorandum of
Understanding executed between the parties.
The Investigating Officer in both the FIRs is the same, i.e., SI
Suraj Pal, PS Keshav Puram and has duly identified the petitioners of each of the petitions and the respondent nos. 2 «& 3 m
CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2in CRL.M.C.
2018:DHC:8448 "V- under Sections 323/506/509/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition seeking quashing of the cross FIR, i.e., FIR No. 660/17, PS
Keshav Puram under Sections 323/506/509/354/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is CRL.M.C.2113/18 which is also listed for the day and proceedings of both the petitions have thus been taken up together.
The petitioners arrayed in CRL.M.C.2110/18 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram are petitioners Kuldeep
Singh and Krishan Lai @Mintu and the complainant ofthe FIR NO. 660/17, PS Keshav Puram is wife ofMr. Kuldeep Singh and the said
Mr. Kuldeep Singh is arrayed as the petitioner no. 1as an accused in relationto FIR No. 661/17, PS KeshavPuram.
Abare perusal of the averments made in both the petitions indicate that the parties in both the petitions are neighbours and have arrived at a settlement mutually vide a settlement agreement dated
16.01.2018 during the course of the proceedings in bail application no. 132/18 and bail application no. 133/18 referred to the Delhi
Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The respondent nos. 2&3 in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2 m
CRL.M.C.2113/18 are signatories to the said Memorandum of
Understanding executed between the parties.
The Investigating Officer in both the FIRs is the same, i.e., SI
Suraj Pal, PS Keshav Puram and has duly identified the petitioners of each of the petitions and the respondent nos. 2 «& 3 m
CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2in CRL.M.C.
CRL.M.C.2110/2018 page no. 2of4
2113/18. The proofs ofidentity ofthe petitioners in both the petitions and ofthe respondent nos. 2&3in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2in CRL.M.C.2113/18 in the form of photocopies of their documents (originals ofwhich have been seen and returned) are on the record. The complainants in relation to the FIRNo. 661/17, PS
Keshav Puram and the complainant in relation to the FIR No. 660/17, PS Keshav Puram have duly affirmed their signatures on their affidavits annexed to their respective petitions and also on the
Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties, which is the same Memorandum of Understanding between the parties arrayed to both the petitions and the terms ofthe mediation settlement categorically bring forth the complainants of the two FIRs as being signatories to the execution of the said MOU vide which the settlement is indicated to have been arrived at between the parties.
The statement of the complainant and the victims in relation to the FIRs in question appear to have been made voluntarily. Thus, as there appears no reason to disbelieve their statements that they have arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and the respondent nos.
2 & 3 in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2 in
CRL.M.C.2113/18 being adequately educated enough to understand the implications of the statement made by them, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case into account, the settlement arrived at between the parties vide asettlement agreement dated 16.01.2018 at Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, CRL.M.C. 2110/2018 page no. 3of4
H the non-opposition on behalf ofthe State, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties in CRL.M.C.2110/18 &
CRL.M.C.2113/18, PS Keshav Puram, it is considered appropriate to put aquietus to the litigation between the parties.
In view thereof, the FIR No. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram under
Sections 323/506/509/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner no. 1Kuldeep Singh and petitioner no. 2Krishan Lai @
Mintu in CRL.M.C. No.2110/18 and FIR NO. 660/17, PS Keshav
Puram under Sections 323/506/509/354/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner no. 1Mrs. Prabhu Jot Kaur, petitioner NO. 2Mrs. Kavita, petitioner no. 3Sh. Akash Saini, petitioner no. 4Sh.
Aman deep Singh and petitioner no. 5 Sh. Parmjeet Singh in
CRL.M.C.No.2113/18 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed and the petitions CRL.M.C.2110/18 &
CRL.M.C.2118/18 are disposed ofaccordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 24, 2018
2113/18. The proofs ofidentity ofthe petitioners in both the petitions and ofthe respondent nos. 2&3in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2in CRL.M.C.2113/18 in the form of photocopies of their documents (originals ofwhich have been seen and returned) are on the record. The complainants in relation to the FIRNo. 661/17, PS
Keshav Puram and the complainant in relation to the FIR No. 660/17, PS Keshav Puram have duly affirmed their signatures on their affidavits annexed to their respective petitions and also on the
Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties, which is the same Memorandum of Understanding between the parties arrayed to both the petitions and the terms ofthe mediation settlement categorically bring forth the complainants of the two FIRs as being signatories to the execution of the said MOU vide which the settlement is indicated to have been arrived at between the parties.
The statement of the complainant and the victims in relation to the FIRs in question appear to have been made voluntarily. Thus, as there appears no reason to disbelieve their statements that they have arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and the respondent nos.
2 & 3 in CRL.M.C.2110/18 as well as the respondent no. 2 in
CRL.M.C.2113/18 being adequately educated enough to understand the implications of the statement made by them, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case into account, the settlement arrived at between the parties vide asettlement agreement dated 16.01.2018 at Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, CRL.M.C. 2110/2018 page no. 3of4
H the non-opposition on behalf ofthe State, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties in CRL.M.C.2110/18 &
CRL.M.C.2113/18, PS Keshav Puram, it is considered appropriate to put aquietus to the litigation between the parties.
In view thereof, the FIR No. 661/17, PS Keshav Puram under
Sections 323/506/509/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner no. 1Kuldeep Singh and petitioner no. 2Krishan Lai @
Mintu in CRL.M.C. No.2110/18 and FIR NO. 660/17, PS Keshav
Puram under Sections 323/506/509/354/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner no. 1Mrs. Prabhu Jot Kaur, petitioner NO. 2Mrs. Kavita, petitioner no. 3Sh. Akash Saini, petitioner no. 4Sh.
Aman deep Singh and petitioner no. 5 Sh. Parmjeet Singh in
CRL.M.C.No.2113/18 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed and the petitions CRL.M.C.2110/18 &
CRL.M.C.2118/18 are disposed ofaccordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 24, 2018
CRL.M.C.2110/2018 pag=ao.4of4
JUDGMENT