Delhi High Court
Rajiv Babbar & Ors. vs The State & Anr. 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. 3416/2014 & Crl. M.A.No.11848/2014
RAJIV BABBAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with Inspector Dinesh
Respondent No.2-in-person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.243/2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the
IPC, registered at police station South Rohini, Delhi is sought on the basis
of joint statement of parties recorded on 23rd January, 2013 recorded
before the learned Family Court (Annexure-P-2).
Notice.
Mr. Parvin Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and 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 Inspector Dinesh, Investigating Officer of
this case.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
Crl. M.C.No. 3416/2014 Page 1
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 `2,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing
No. '283184' dated 16th January, 2015, drawn on Dena Bank, Branch
Rohini, Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been already
granted by the family court on 29th October, 2013. Respondent No.2
affirms the contents of aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit of 28th
July, 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
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
Crl. M.C.No. 3416/2014 Page 2
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.243/2012, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station South
Rohini, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2015
r
Crl. M.C.No. 3416/2014 Page 3
