Delhi High Court
Bhupender Kumar Ujinia & Ors. vs The 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. 4144/2014
BHUPENDER KUMAR UJINIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Gautam, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Abhishek
Mr. V.M. Issar, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.163/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis
of Settlement whose terms find mention in the joint statement of
petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife made before the
Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th January, 2001 in proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C..
Notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr.V.M. Issar, Advocate, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
CRL.M.C. 4144/2014 Page 1
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State
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
her counsel as well as by SI Abhishek on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement
and terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that divorce by mutual
consent has been already granted by the family court on 28th January,
2013. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Settlement 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:-
"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.
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."
CRL.M.C. 4144/2014 Page 2
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.163/2010, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Prasad Nagar,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4144/2014 Page 3
