Delhi High Court
Rahul Srivastava & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 16 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 16, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 140/2015
RAHUL SRIVASTAVA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Praveen Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Balbir
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.11/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC
registered at police station Madipur, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 22nd October, 2013 arrived at Delhi Mediation
Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2).
Notice.
Mr. Parveen Bhati, 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 she
has been identified to be so by ASI Balbir on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
CRL.M.C. 140/2015 Page 1
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Mediated
Settlement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has
received the balance settled amount of `60,000/- in cash. Respondent
No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement and of her
affidavit of 13th January, 2015 supporting this petition and submits that
now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, 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:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a
compromise between two warring groups, therefore,
should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a
court which should endeavour to give full effect to the
same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful
composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor."
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
CRL.M.C. 140/2015 Page 2
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.11/2010, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Madipur, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 140/2015 Page 3
