Delhi High Court
Ravinder Bhati vs State & Anr. on 20 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 20, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 226/2015
RAVINDER BHATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Chander
Mr. Vipin K. Soni, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl. M.A.No.894/2015 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
Delay of 59 days in re-filing the accompanying petition is
condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 226/2015
Quashing of FIR No. 233/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/506 of
the IPC, registered at police station Jaitpur , Delhi is sought on the basis
of mediated settlement of 16th September, 2015 (Annexure-B), arrived at
Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Notice.
Crl.M.C.No.226/2015 Page 1
Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State accepts notice and Mr. Vipin K. Soni , Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
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 Chander, Investigating Officer of this case.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
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 as today, she has received
the balance settled amount of `49,869/- by way of demand draft bearing
No. '926667', dated 18th December, 2014, drawn on Vijaya Bank,
Service Branch, New Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been
already granted by the family court on 6th June, 2014. Respondent No.2
affirms the contents of aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit of 31st
October, 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:-
"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
Crl.M.C.No.226/2015 Page 2
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."
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. 233/2013, under
Sections 498-A/406/506 of the IPC, registered at police station Jaitpur ,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.226/2015 Page 3
