Delhi High Court
Mahesh Aggarwal vs State & Anr. on 27 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 27, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 308/2015 & Crl.M.As.1194-96/2015
MAHESH AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhati, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Yogesh
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.401/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Bhajanpura, Delhi is sought on the basis
of Mediated Settlement of 23rd July, 2011 arrived at Delhi Mediation
Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Notice.
Ms.Nishi Jain, 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 SI Yogesh on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
CRL.M.C. 308/2015 Page 1
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Mediated
Settlement and today, she has received an FDR for `25,000/- in the name
of minor child of respondent No.2 and that divorce by mutual consent has
been already granted by the family court on 15th March, 2013.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement
and of her affidavit of 30th May, 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
provided she is paid further amount of `5,000/-.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits on instructions that
respondent No.2 shall be paid rupees five thousand by petitioners within a
period of one week from today.
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 in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
CRL.M.C. 308/2015 Page 2
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.401/2010, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Bhajanpura,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners upon placing on record the receipt of payment of `5,000/- to
respondent No.2 by petitioners within a week from today.
This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 308/2015 Page 3
