Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar & Anr. vs State on 13 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 3264/2014
KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Garg and Mr. Ganesh
Tiwari, Advocates for petitioner
No.1
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi and Ms.
Shuchi Singh, Advocates for
petitioner No.2
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Praveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vishal
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
FIR No.234/2010, under Sections 279/304-A of IPC registered at
police station Bharat Nagar, Delhi pertains to a vehicular accident which
took place on 5th September, 2010 in front of a park near the wall of
A-114, Ashok Vihar and the said accident was purportedly witnessed by
one Satish Kumar.
In this joint petition, quashing of aforesaid FIR is sought on the
ground that the wife of the deceased, who is petitioner No.2 herein, has
been duly compensated.
Crl.M.C.3264/2014 Page 1
At the hearing of this joint petition, learned counsel for petitioners
has placed on record certified copy of the evidence of purported aforesaid
eye-witness-Satish Kumar to submit that petitioner No.1 was not involved
in the accident in question.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that petitioner No.2, present in the Court, is the wife of the
deceased and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by
SI Vishal on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that the
evidence of material witness i.e. aforesaid Satish Kumar (PW-2) does not
incriminate petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No.2, present in the Court, submits that she has been
duly compensated to the tune of `4 lac (`3.20 lac by way of two demand
drafts and `80,000/- in cash) in terms of the Compromise/Settlement of
7th July, 2014 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties and that the
misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands
cleared between the parties. Petitioner No.2 affirms the contents of
aforesaid Compromise/Settlement and submits that now no dispute with
petitioner No.1 survives and 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
Crl.M.C.3264/2014 Page 2
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
Compromise/Settlement and in view of the fact that petitioner No.2, who
is the wife of deceased, has been duly compensated and that the
deposition of material witness does not incriminate petitioner No.1, 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.234/2010, under
Sections 279/304-A of IPC registered at police station Bharat Nagar,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
s
Crl.M.C.3264/2014 Page 3
