Durgesh Sehgal & Anr v. State & Anr

1. The above captioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing oftwo cross FIRs and the consequential proceedings W.P.(CRL) No.3330/2017 &Crl.M.C. No.4939/2017 Page 1of[3] 2017:DHC:8286 u arising therefrom onthe basis ofsettlement arrived at between theparties.

2. W.P.(Crl.) No.3330/2017 has been filed by the petitioners namely Durgesh Sehgal and Deepak Sehgal praying for quashing of FIR No.380/2014 underSection 354(D)/509 IPG registered at PS JagatPuri.

3. Crl.M.C.No.4939/2017 has been filed by the petitioners namely Subhash Kainth, Mohit Kainth and Sahil Kainth praying for quashing ofFIR No.13/2014 underSection 307/323/34 IPG registered at PS Jagat Puri.

4. Notice. Learned ASG for the State/R-1 as well as learned counsel for complainant accepts notice in boththe petitions.

5. Gase FIR No.380/2014 under Section 354(D)/509 IPG, PS Jagat Puri has been registered onthebasis of complaint made by Poonam Kainth (wife of one of the accused in cross FIRNo.13/2014).

6. Gase FIR No.13/2014 under Section 307/323/34 IPG, PS Jagat Puri has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Smt.Neelam Sehgal. (sister of one of accused Durgesh Sehgal inFIRNo.380/2014).

7. Parties are present in person alongwith their respective counsel.

8. " Learned counsel for the parties submitthat the parties are neighbours having their houses in front of each other.^The dispute between the parties were over some petty issues due to which the parties got registered cross FIRs against each other.

9. Learned counselfor the parties submitthat duringthe pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement with the intervention of common friends and well-wishes so that they can live peacefully in the neighbourhood. Gopy ofthe settlement agreement has been annexed with the petitions.

10. Learned counsel for the parties prays that since the parties have W.P.(CRL)No.3330/2017&CrlMC.No.4939/2017 Page 2 of[3] > settled their dispute amicable,no purpose would be served by continuingthe criminal proceedings against the petitioners (accused persons in both the FIRs), hence both the FIRs, which are the cross FIRs, may be quashed.

11. One of the FIRs i.e. FIR No:13/2014 has been registered against the petitioners namely Subhash Kainth, Mohit Kainth and Sahil Kainth for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/323/34 IPG. However, on the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court framed the, charge against the accused persons namely Subhash Kainth, Mohit Kainth and Sahil Kainth for committing the offence punishable under Sections 323/324 IPG. Gopy of the charge as well as the order on charge dated 7"^ August, 2014 has been placed on record, (at page No.38 to 46 in Grl.M.G. No.4939/2017).

12. In view of the legal position laid down in Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257 and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time ofthe Gourt.

13. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Both the FIRs i.e. FIR No.380/2014 under Section 354(D)/509 IPG registered at PS Jagat Puri and FIR No.13/2014 under Section 307/323/34 IPG registered at PS Jagat Puri are hereby quashed. The Parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

0. Order dasti.