Delhi High Court
Rashmi Bansal & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 19 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4432/2014 & Crl.M.A.15203/2014
RASHMI BANSAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sharmila
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.17/2014, under Sections 370/371/354/34 of
IPC registered at police station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi and the charge-
sheet filed in this case is sought on the basis of Settlement of
Deed/Memorandum of Understanding of 21st September, 2014
(Annexure-F).
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State has placed on record the status report 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 SI Sharmila on
the basis of identity proof produced by her.
CRL.M.C. 4432/2014 Page 1
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement
of Deed/Memorandum of Understanding and submits that she was
employed as a Maid with petitioners No.1 & 2 through petitioner No.3
and the FIR in question is an outcome of a misunderstanding regarding
payment of wages, etc., which now stands cleared and that she was of
major age on the day of incident. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of
aforesaid Settlement of Deed/Memorandum of Understanding and of her
affidavit of 23rd September, 2014 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:-
"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 case and on perusal of the
charge-sheet of this case, the status report, the Settlement of
Deed/Memorandum of Understanding and the material on record, I find
that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would
CRL.M.C. 4432/2014 Page 2
be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to
registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to total cost of
`25,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief
Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of
cost, FIR No.17/2014, under Sections 370/371/354/34 of IPC registered
at police station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4432/2014 Page 3
