Delhi High Court
Nitin Kumar & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 21 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 21, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2563/2014
NITIN KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tarun Chandiok, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ACP B.S. Dahiya and SI
Bhagwan Singh
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with
Ms. Kartikeya Bhargawa,
Advocates with respondent No.2 in
person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.285/2013 under Sections 498-A/506/509/34
of IPC registered at police station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 9th December, 2013 arrived at Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Annexure P-1) and the fact that
petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together happily
since 5th September, 2013.
Notice.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
CRL.M.C. 2563/2014 Page 1
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Rajat Aneja, 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 Bhagwan Singh 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 Mediated
Settlement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that she is
living together happily with petitioner-husband since 5th September,
2013. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Mediated
Settlement and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and
to restore cordiality between the parties, 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
CRL.M.C. 2563/2014 Page 2
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.285/2013 under
Sections 498-A/506/509/34 of IPC registered at police station Dabri,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners. However, it is made clear that if the marriage of respondent
No.2 with petitioner-husband again runs into rough weather, then this
order will not stand in her way to have recourse to law.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 21, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 2563/2014 Page 3
