Delhi High Court
Motiwala & Ors. vs State & Ors. 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. 2519/2014
MOTIWALA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Bansi Lal
Mr. Amardeep Singh &
Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.2
+ CRL.M.C. 2522/2014
R.K.SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amardeep Singh &
Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Bansi Lal
Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate for
respondents No.2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl.M.C.No.2519/2014 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.
460/2003, under Sections 186/353/356/509 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No.
2519/2014] & FIR No. 463/2003, under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC
[Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014] both registered at police station R.K.Puram,
New Delhi is sought by petitioners.
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.
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the above captioned
two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts
notice of the above captioned first petition i.e. Crl.M.C.No.2519/2014
and Mr. Vinod Diwkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice of the above captioned second petition
i.e. Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014 .
It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State that respondent No.2- R.K. Sawhney is the complainant/
first-informant of FIR No. 460/2003 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2519/2014] and
respondent No.2- Ashok Dwarkadas Motiwala is the complainant/ first-
informant of FIR No. 463/2003 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2522/2014] and they
are present in the Court and they have been indentified to be so by SI
Bansi Lal, Investigating Officer of these cases.
It is submitted by both the sides that there is no personal enmity
amongst the parties and the dispute, which led to registration of the two
FIRs in question, primarily relates to reconciliation of electricity bill,
Crl.M.C.No.2519/2014 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014
which now stands amicably resolved. It is submitted by counsel
representing both sides that to restore cordiality amongst the parties,
proceedings arising out of FIRs in question be brought to an end.
The complainant party of the afore-noted two FIRs affirm the
factum of settlement amongst them and they also affirm contents of their
affidavits of 20th May, 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 Five Thousand each in
both of these petitions with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four
Crl.M.C.No.2519/2014 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014
weeks and after placing on record receipt of cost within a week thereafter,
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 460/2003, under Sections
186/353/356/509 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 2519/2014] & FIR No.
463/2003, under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC [Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014]
both registered at police station R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall stand
quashed.
The above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of
in aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.2519/2014 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.2522/2014
