Delhi High Court
Rani Yadav & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 14 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 14, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 5457/2014
RANI YADAV & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Devender and SI
P.R. Hooda
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.705/2008, under Sections 147/323/506/427/34
of IPC registered at police station Dwarka, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Compromise/Settlement of (Annexure P-3) and on the ground that the
misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared
between the parties.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present
in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he
has been identified to be so by SI P.R. Hooda on the basis of identity
CRL.M.C. 5457/2014 Page 1
proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise/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 Compromise/Settlement and of his affidavit of 26th
November, 2014 supporting 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 residents of the grouping housing society, 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
Compromise/Settlement, 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
CRL.M.C. 5457/2014 Page 2
cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `30,000/- to
be equally borne by all the petitioners. The cost be deposited with the
Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing
on record the receipt of cost, FIR No.705/2008, under Sections
147/323/506/427/34 of IPC registered at police station Dwarka, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 5457/2014 Page 3
