Delhi High Court
Rameshwar Yadav & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. 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. 3542/2013
RAMESHWAR YADAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav,
Mr. Ankit Sibbal & Mr. Sparsh
Jain, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
No.1-State with SI Raj Kumar
Mr. Anshul Garg, Mr. Gupta &
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocates
for respondent No.2 with
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 132/2011, under Sections 420/468/471/34 of
the IPC, registered at police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi is sought on
the basis of Compromise Deed of May, 2013.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the subject matter of
this FIR is essentially a commercial dispute which stands amicably
resolved between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for
petitioners that in terms of settlement, objections filed to the closure
Crl.M.C.No.3542/2013 Page 1
report in complaint No. 190/2011 would be promptly withdrawn by
petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State has placed on record status report and submits that
trial of this case has not yet begun.
Upon notice, Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma has appeared on behalf
of respondent No.2-Association and has placed on record his
authorization on the basis of which he affirms the factum of settlement
with petitioners and submits that there is no forgery angle and the bona
fide dispute between the parties regarding the passage now stands
mutually and amicably resolved and the terms of Compromise Deed have
been acted upon and so, proceedings arising out of 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:-
"However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the
wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and
the victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences
have not been made compoundable, the High Court
may within the framework of its inherent power, quash
the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR
if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
Crl.M.C.No.3542/2013 Page 2
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated."
In the facts and circumstances of this case and on perusal of FIR of
this case, status report wherein it is clearly stated that allegations of
forgery are not substantiated and in view of the settlement reached
between the parties, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of
FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `40,000/- to
be deposited by petitioners with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within
two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 132/2011, under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the IPC, registered at
police station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.3542/2013 Page 3
