Delhi High Court
Amir Ahmad vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi & 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. 4018/2014
AMIR AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Zishan Khan, Advocate
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Amit Kumar
Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate
with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.71/2008, under Sections 288/336 of IPC
registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 19th April, 2014 arrived at Delhi Mediation
Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2).
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr.Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant
CRL.M.C. 4018/2014 Page 1
of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel
as well as by SI Amit Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by
her.
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 Mediated
Settlement and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the
misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands
cleared between the parties. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of
aforesaid Mediated Settlement and of her affidavit of 1st September, 2014
supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner
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
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
CRL.M.C. 4018/2014 Page 2
Mediated Settlement and the affidavit of respondent No.2, I find that
continuance of proceedings arising out of 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 and FIR No.71/2008, under
Sections 288/336 of IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4018/2014 Page 3
