Delhi High Court
Amit Gogia & Ors. vs The State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 22 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 22, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1316/2014
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Suresh Chand
Ms. Neetu Mishra, Advocate for
respondent No.2
+ CRL.M.C. 1350/2014
AMIT GOGIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Suresh Chand
Ms. Neetu Mishra, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No.
Crl.M.C.No.1316/2014 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2012
114/2012, under Sections 323/354/452/34 of the IPC [in Crl. M.C. No.
1316/2014] & FIR No. 298/2012, under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC
r/w Sec. 3 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [in Crl. M.C. No. 1350/2012], both
registered at police station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is sought by
petitioners on the basis that the misunderstanding between the parties,
which led to registration of the FIRs in question, stands cleared.
Since the incident, which gave rise to registration of FIRs in
question is one and quashing of these FIRs has been sought on common
grounds, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No. 2 - Meenakshi Gogia,
who is the complainant of FIR No. 114/2012 and respondents No. 3 to 9
[in Crl. M.C. No. 1316/2014] who are the injured and respondent No.2-
Deepak Kumar, who is the complainant of FIR No. 298/2012 [in
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2014] are present in the Court and they have been
identified to be so by SI Suresh Chand, Investigating Officer of this case.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that even on merits, no
case under Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, as the ingredients of
this offence are lacking and even no case under Section 354 of the IPC is
made out in the cross-FIR.
Respondent No.2- Meenakshi Gogia¸ who is the complainant of
FIR No. 114/2012 [in Crl. M.C. No. 1316/2014] and respondent No.2-
Deepak Kumar, who is the complainant of FIR No. 298/2012 [in
Crl.M.C.No.1316/2014 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2012
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2014] submits that they are neighbours and the
misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, stands cleared
amongst them. They also affirm contents of their affidavits 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.
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 peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
the affidavits of the parties and status report on record, I find that even if
version and cross-version of this incident are taken to be correct, still the
provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or Section 354 of the IPC are not
attracted. It is deemed appropriate that proceedings arising out of these
FIRs are brought to an end to restore cordiality amongst the parties.
Accordingly both these petitions are allowed subject to deposit of
cost of Rupees twenty Five Thousand only by petitioners in Crl. M.C. No.
Crl.M.C.No.1316/2014 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2012
1350/2014 with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within two weeks and
after placing on record receipt of cost within a week, the proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 114/2012, under Sections 323/354/452/34 of the
IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 1316/2014] & FIR No. 298/2012, under Sections
323/341/34 of the IPC r/w Sec. 3 of The Scheduled Castes and The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [in Crl. M.C. No.
1350/2012], both registered at police station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
shall stand quashed.
The above captioned two petitions are disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.1316/2014 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.1350/2012
