Delhi High Court
Mehar Singh & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 12 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 12, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 5261/2013
MEHAR SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. (Maj.) J.C. Vashista and Ms.
Rekha Tiwari, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ajay
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.02/1997, under Sections 420/471/451/341/
120-B/34 of IPC registered at police station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Mediated Settlement of 27th July, 2013 and on the ground that the
misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared
between the parties.
Upon notice, respondent No.2 has appeared in person and he has
been identified to be the complainant of this case.
Mr.Parveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that the first-informant of the FIR in question is
one Sushil Kumar and that respondent No.2, present in the Court, has
CRL.M.C. 5261/2013 Page 1
been identified to be the complainant of the FIR in question by SI Ajay
on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that petitioners are
his relatives and first informant-Sushil Kumar was his tenant, who is
untraceable, and the Mediated Settlement of 27th July, 2013 has been
acted upon and 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 his affidavit
of 13th December, 2014 this petition and submits that now no dispute with
petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties,
who are said to be relatives, 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
aforesaid Mediated Settlement, I find that continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the
CRL.M.C. 5261/2013 Page 2
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands
cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to total cost of
`10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief
Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of
cost, FIR No.02/1997, under Sections 420/471/451/341/120-B/34 of IPC
registered at police station Dabri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 5261/2013 Page 3
