Delhi High Court
Manjit Singh & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 9 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 09, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4058/2014
MANJIT SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Inderpal Khokhar and Ms.
Muskan Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Pramod Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In FIR No.353/2004 registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi,
petitioners have been charged for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC
only.
Learned counsel for petitioners has placed on record certified copy
of trial court's order of 28th March, 2008, which discloses that the
petitioners-accused persons have been discharged for the offence under
Section 304-B of IPC and they have been called upon to face the trial
under Section 498-A of IPC only. To seek the quashing of this FIR and
the charge framed, reliance is placed upon Compromise Deed of 30th
September, 2010.
Upon notice, respondent No.2, who is the father of the deceased,
has appeared and he has been identified to be the complainant/first-
CRL.M.C. 4058/2014 Page 1
informant of the FIR in question.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that respondent No.2 has been identified to be so by SI Pramod Kumar on
the basis of identity proof produced by him. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for 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 dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise Deed and terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that
it has been agreed by the parties that the daughter of the deceased, who is
now aged about 11 years, would be maintained by petitioner No.1, who
happens to be the real father. To show the bonafide, learned counsel for
petitioners has placed on record copy of an FDR of `3 lac, which is in the
name of minor child of the deceased and this FDR is encashable only
when the child attains the age of majority. It is undertaken on behalf of
petitioners that the child of the deceased would be looked after well by
the petitioners.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Compromise
Deed and of his affidavit of 30th August, 2014 supporting this petition and
submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in this case, petitioners
have remained behind bars for a period of about one month or so and in
the facts of this case, the continuance of proceedings arising out of the
FIR in question, which was registered about a decade back, would be an
exercise in futility.
CRL.M.C. 4058/2014 Page 2
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:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a
compromise between two warring groups, therefore,
should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a
court which should endeavour to give full effect to the
same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful
composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the FIR of this case,
the order on charge, the status report and the material on record, I find
that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, continuance of
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be a futile exercise.
Consequently, this petition is allowed and FIR No.353/2004 under
Sections 304-B/498-A of IPC registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4058/2014 Page 3
