Delhi High Court
Subhash Chander & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 16 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 16, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 4440/2014
R K JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Yudhisth
Sharma, Mr. Satish Kumar and Mr.
R.K. Tripathi, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vishal
Respondent No.2 in person
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 3322/2014 & Crl.M.A.15817/2014
SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. Yudhisth
Sharma, Mr. Satish Kumar and Mr.
R.K. Tripathi, Advocates
versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vishal
Mr. A.K.Tripathi, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIRs i.e.
CRl.M.Cs.4440 & 3322 of 2014 Page 1
FIR No.277/2013 under Sections 451/506 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4440/2014]
and FIR No.7/2014 under Sections 323/506/509/34 of IPC [in
Crl.M.C.3322/2014], both registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi, is
sought on the ground that the incident in question took place due to
misunderstanding which now stands cleared between the parties, who are
said to be neighbours.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that respondent No.2-Veena Rani [in Crl.M.C.4440/2014] and respondent
No.2-Usha Rani [in Crl.M.C.3322/2014] present in court have been
identified to be the complainant party of these two FIR cases by SI Vishal
on the basis of identity proofs produced by them.
Respondents No.2/complainant party of these two FIR cases,
present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been
amicably resolved and that the misunderstanding, which led to the
incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondents
No.2-Veena and Usha Rani affirm the factum of the Settlement and
contents of their affidavits of 29th September, 2014 supporting this
petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so,
to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, 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
CRl.M.Cs.4440 & 3322 of 2014 Page 2
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 affidavits
of complainant party, 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
cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to cost of
`15,000/- in each petition to be deposited by petitioners 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.277/2013 under Sections
451/506 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.4440/2014] and FIR No.7/2014 under
Sections 323/506/509/34 of IPC [in Crl.M.C.3322/2014], both registered
at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
The above captioned two petitions and the application are
accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2015
s
CRl.M.Cs.4440 & 3322 of 2014 Page 3
