Delhi High Court
Ram Rati & Ors. vs The State & 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. 4143/2014
RAM RATI & OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Rajvir Singh
Respondents No. 2 & 3 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 176/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
the IPC, registered at CAW Cell, Nanakpura , New Delhi is sought on the
ground that respondent No.2- husband and respondent No.3-wife are
living together happily.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice submits that respondent No.3, present in
the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she
has been identified to be so by SI Rajvir Singh, Investigating Officer of
this case.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
Crl.M.C.No.4143/2014 Page 1
instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
Respondent No.3, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved and she is happily
residing with respondent No.2-husband and to restore cordiality amongst
the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an
end, provided petitioners shall give an undertaking that they shall not
interfere in the matrimonial rights of respondent No.2-husband and
respondent No.3-wife.
Learned counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that
petitioners shall not interfere in any way in the matrimonial life of
respondents No. 2 & 3 and if they do so, then proceedings arising out of
FIR in question be revived.
Respondent No.3 affirms contents of her affidavit of 16th January,
2015 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with
petitioners or respondent No.2 survives and to restore cordiality between
the parties, 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.
Crl.M.C.No.4143/2014 Page 2
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.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 176/2010, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at CAW Cell, Nanakpura ,
New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners and respondent No.2 as well. However, it is made clear that if
the marriage of respondent No.3 with respondent No.2-husband again
runs into rough weather, then this judgment will not stand in her way to
have recourse to law.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.4143/2014 Page 3
