Delhi High Court
Pardeep vs Jyoti & Ors. 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. 2014/2012
PARDEEP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate
versus
JYOTI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Respondent No.1 in person
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.2-
State with ASI Tej Ram
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.559/2007, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
registered at police station Najafgarh, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Settlement-Agreement of 20th January, 2014 reached between the parties
through Delhi High Court Mediation and Concliliation Centre.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that respondent No.1, 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 ASI Tej Ram,
Investigating Officer of this case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for State submits on instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet
Crl.M.C.No.2014/2012 Page 1
begun.
Respondent No.1, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Settlement-Agreement of 20th January, 2014 and joint statement of parties
under Section 13 (b) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
recorded and in terms of settlement, petitioner-husband has to pay her
`10,000/- at the time of recording of joint statement under Section 13 (b)
(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is likely to be moved in
March, 2015 and a sum of `20,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing
of FIR in question.
Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that the
remaining settled amount of `30,000/- in toto shall be paid to respondent
No.2/ complainant at the time of recording of joint statement under
Section 13 (b) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the court
concerned.
In view of aforesaid undertaking on behalf of petitioner, respondent
No.2 submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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
Crl.M.C.No.2014/2012 Page 2
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.559/2007, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of registered at police station Najafgarh, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner
subject to his abiding by the undertaking given before this Court. It is
made clear that if petitioner-husband does not abide by the aforesaid
undertaking, then respondent No.2-wife would be at liberty to get the
instant proceedings revived.
This petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.2014/2012 Page 3
