Delhi High Court
Raju Chauhan & Ors. vs The State & Ors. on 20 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 20, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 4166/2014
RAJU CHAUHAN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sachin
Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Advocate
with respondents No.2 to 6 in
person
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 4172/2014
VINOD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sachin
Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 4166 & 4172 of 2014 Page 1
In the above-captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.79/2012
under Sections 323/506/308/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi is sought whereas in the above-captioned second petition,
quashing of criminal complaint No.151/01/12 titled Raju Chauhan v.
Vinod & Ors. under Sections 323/307/308/506/34 of IPC is sought.
Aforesaid quashing is sought on the basis of Memorandum of
Understanding of 31st March, 2014 and affidavits of the complainant
party in these two petitions.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions were heard together and by this common judgment, they are
being disposed of as they pertain to one incident.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that the complainant parties as well as accused persons of these two
petitions are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so
by their respective counsel as well as by SI Sachin on the basis of identity
proofs produced by them.
Complainant party of these two petitions, present in the Court,
submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved
vide aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and the terms thereof have
been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which led to the
incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties. Complainant
party of these two petitions affirms the contents of aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding and of their affidavits filed in support of
these two petitions and submits that now no dispute with petitioners-
accused persons survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the
parties, who are neighbours, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
CRL.M.C. 4166 & 4172 of 2014 Page 2
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 in view of aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding, I find that continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands
cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, the above captioned two petitions are allowed subject
to cost of `10,000/- per petition 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.79/2012 under Sections
323/506/308/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [in
Crl.M.C.4166/2014] and criminal complaint No.151/01/12 titled Raju
Chauhan v. Vinod & Ors. under Sections 323/307/308/506/34 of IPC [in
Crl.M.C.4172/2014] and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioners-accused persons.
CRL.M.C. 4166 & 4172 of 2014 Page 3
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 4166 & 4172 of 2014 Page 4
