Delhi High Court
Smt Harinder Kaur vs State & Anr. on 8 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 08, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3951/2014
SMT HARINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandna,
Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Baljinder Singh
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.104/2009, under Sections 420/467/468/471/
34/120-B of IPC registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi is sought
on the basis of Settlement Agreement of 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) on
the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR
now stands cleared between the parties.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
CRL.M.C. 3951/2014 Page 1
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant
of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so by his counsel
as well as by SI Baljinder Singh on the basis of identity proof produced
by him.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
on instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the allegations
of forgery, etc., were against petitioner No.1, who is no longer in this
world and the misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question,
now stands cleared with petitioner No.2 and the dispute between the
parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement Agreement
whose terms have been fully acted upon. Respondent No.2 affirms the
contents of aforesaid Settlement Agreement and of his affidavit of 28th
May, 2014 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with
petitioner No.2 survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question be brought to an end.
In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
CRL.M.C. 3951/2014 Page 2
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid
Settlement Agreement and affidavit of respondent No.2, I find that
continuance of proceedings qua petitioner No.2 in the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to
registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `15,000/- to
be deposited by petitioner No.2 with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within
two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No.104/2009, under Sections 420/467/468/471/34/120-B of IPC
registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner No.2.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 3951/2014 Page 3
