Delhi High Court
Praveen vs State Of Delhi & 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. 161/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.686/2015
PRAVEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ram Naresh, Advocate with
petitioner in person
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Narender Singh
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 91/2014, under Section 308 of the IPC,
registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground
that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now
stands cleared between the parties.
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, 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 Narender Singh, Investigating Officer
Crl.M.C.No.161/2015 Page 1
of this case.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that petitioner is
his neighbor and dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved.
It is submitted by respondent No.2 that the misunderstanding, which led
to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of his affidavit of 18th February,
2014 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with
petitioner survives and so, to restore the cordiality between the parties,
who are neighbours, 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, I find that continuance of
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in
Crl.M.C.No.161/2015 Page 2
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. 91/2014, under
Section 308 of the IPC, registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.161/2015 Page 3
