Delhi High Court
Shabbu & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. 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. 167/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.715/2015
SHABBU & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohd. Taranuum, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Narinder
Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate for
respondents No.2 to 8
+ CRL.M.C. 169/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.718/2015
ARSHAD & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Narinder
Mr. Mohd. Taranuum, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.
283/2014 [in Crl. M.C. No. 167/2015] & FIR No. 284/2014
Crl.M.C.No.167/2015 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.169/2015
[Crl.M.C.No.169/2015] both under Sections 308/323/341/34 of the IPC
and registered at police station Sonia Vihar, Delhi is sought by petitioners
on the basis of Agreement 6th August, 2014.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that these petitions pertain
to quashing of cross-FIRs and parties to these petitions are common and
therefore, these petitions be heard together.
In view of above, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the
above captioned two petitions are heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice
of the above captioned two petitions and submits that petitioners and
respondents of both the petitions are present in the Court. It is submitted
by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that
petitioner No.1- Shabbu is the complainant/ first-informant of FIR No.
283/2014 [in Crl.M.C.No.167/2015] and petitioner No.1- Arshad is the
complainant/first-informant of FIR No. 284/2014 [in Crl.M.C.No.
169/2015] and they are present in the Court and they have been
indentified to be so by SI Narinder, Investigating Officer of these cases.
Petitioners No. 1 to 14 in Crl.M.C.No.167/2015 and petitioners
No.1 to 9 in Crl.M.C.No.169/2015 are said to be descendants of common
ancestors and due to some misunderstanding, a property dispute arose
between the parties, which stands settled in terms of Agreement of 6th
August, 2014. It is submitted by counsel representing both sides that in
terms of aforesaid settlement, civil proceedings have been also withdrawn
and now, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out
of FIRs in question be brought to an end.
Crl.M.C.No.167/2015 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.169/2015
The complainant party of the afore-noted two FIRs affirm the
factum of Memorandum of Understanding amongst them and they also
affirm contents of their affidavits of 24th December, 2014 placed on
record in support of these petitions. They submit that to restore cordiality
amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of these FIRs be brought to
an end, as the trial has not yet begun.
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 view of the fact that the misunderstanding, which led to lodging
of these two FIRs stands cleared, this Court finds that continuance of
proceedings arising out of these cross FIRs would be an exercise in
futility.
Upon deposit of cost of Rupees Twenty Thousand each in these
two petitions with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks
and after placing on record receipt of cost within a week, proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 283/2014 [in Crl. M.C. No. 167/2015] & FIR No.
284/2014 [Crl.M.C.No.169/2015], both under Sections 308/323/341/34 of
Crl.M.C.No.167/2015 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.169/2015
the IPC and registered at police station Sonia Vihar, Delhi shall stand
quashed.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of
in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.167/2015 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.169/2015
