Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Budhiraja & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 13 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 13, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 2640/2014
SANJEEV KUMAR BUDHIRAJA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan
Mr. R.S. Malik and Mr. Sahil
Malik, Advocates for respondents
No.2 to 5
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 2619/2014
SANJEEV BHARARA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. Abnave
Sharma and Mr. Sahil Malik,
Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Chander Bhan
Respondents No.2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 1
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
FIR No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections
452/323/336/341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of the
complainant-party.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions are being heard together and by this common judgment, they are
being disposed of together as they pertain to cross-FIRs which arose out
of same incident.
Learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submits that the
incident in question arose out of a misunderstanding between the parties,
which now stands cleared and the Memorandum of Understanding in the
form of settlement is on record alongwith affidavits of the parties and to
bring cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of the
FIRs in question be brought to an end.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar and Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accept notice and submits that
respondents-Sanjeev Bharara, Anil Bharara, Bhupinder Singh and
Krishan Kumar Tiwari (in Crl.M.C.2640/2014) and respondents-Sanjeev
Kumar, Ashwani Kumar and Bhushan Sikka (in Crl.M.C. 2619/2014) are
present in the Court and they have been identified to be complainant party
in FIRs No.465/2014 & 464/2014 respectively by ASI Chander Bhan on
the basis of their identity proofs.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for respondent-State
submit, on instructions, that the trial of these two cross-FIRs cases has not
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 2
yet begun and the allegations of firing do not stand substantiated from the
investigation conducted and that the antecedents of both the parties are
clean.
Complainant-party of the aforesaid two FIRs, present in the Court,
submit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved
vide Memorandum of Understanding of 30th April, 2014 (Annexure A-7)
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. Complainant party, present in the Court,
affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and of
their affidavits, placed on record in support of these petitions and submits
that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the
cordiality amongst the parties, 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.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 3
Memorandum of Understanding and the affidavits of the complainant
party, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the cross FIRs
in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding,
which led to registration of the cross FIRs, now stands cleared between
the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to cost of
`30,000/- in each petition to be deposited by the petitioners of both the
petitions with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from
today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.465/2014 and FIR No.464/2014 both under Sections 452/323/336/
341/34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Rajouri
Garden, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
s
Crl.M.Cs.2640 & 2619 of 2014 Page 4
