Delhi High Court
Ruchi Bedi vs Jamal Akhtar & Ors on 15 December, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 15th December, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.5091/2015
RUCHI BEDI
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.M.Haneef, Adv.
versus
JAMAL AKHTAR & ORS
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Anil Vyas, Adv for R1
with respondent No.1 in
person.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State with SI Suresh Sharma,
PS Kalkaji, Delhi in person
for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No.18337/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C. No.5091/2015
1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 954/2006
registered at Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi for the offences
punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC and the consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.1
Sh.Jamal Akhtar. Police charge sheeted the petitioner. Meanwhile, the
respondents No.1 has amicably settled his disputes with the petitioner
vide Compromise Deed dated 25.05.2011 before Mediation Centre, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi for a total sum of Rs.3.00 Lac; out of which an
amount of Rs.1.00 Lac was paid on the date of settlement before the said
Mediation Centre and balance amount of Rs.2.00 Lac was paid in cash
before learned Link Magistrate on 30.05.2012. Thus, respondent No.2,
on receipt of settled amount, does not wish to pursue the matter anymore
and has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
3. Respondents No.1 is personally present in the Court through
learned counsel above named and has been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.1
under instructions does not dispute the submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioner. Further submits that the matter has been settled
with the petitioner, thus, he does not wish to pursue his case further and
has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that chargesheet has been filed by the police and matter is
pending trial against petitioner. Since the parties have amicably settled
the matter before Mediation Centre, noted above and the respondent
No.1/complainant does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioner,
therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be
served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if
the present petition is allowed.
5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 406/420 of the IPC
is compoundable and matter is pending trial before learned Trial Court.
The parties invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P
C, instead of moving before learned Trial Court for compounding the
matter.
6. However, both the parties who are present in the Court today,
approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 25.05.2011 and undertake to
remain bound by the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, considering the settlement arrived
at between the parties and the statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2, I am
of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility.
8. Consequently, FIR No.954/2006 registered at Police Station
Kalkaji for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the
IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
Crl.M.A.No.18338/2015 (Stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 15, 2015/M
