Delhi High Court
Laveen Maan vs State Of Delhi & 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. 3366/2014
LAVEEN MAAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipin Rathi, Advocate
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Vijay
Mr. K.K.Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 541/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 of the
IPC, registered at police station Prashant Vihar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Compromise Deed of 4th May, 2014 of (Annexure-C) and on the
ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR
now stands cleared between the parties.
Notice.
Mr. Parvin Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that the charge-sheet in this case has been filed
in this case for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC only and that
respondent No.2 is present in the Court and he is the complainant/first-
Crl.M.C.No. 3366/2014 Page 1
informant of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so by
his counsel as well as by SI Vijay, Investigating Officer of this case.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Compromise Deed of 4th May, 2014 of (Annexure-C) and the terms
thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding, which
led to the incident in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Compromise Deed of
4th May, 2014 of (Annexure-C) and of his affidavit of 28th May, 2014
supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are
neighbours, 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:-
"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."
Crl.M.C.No. 3366/2014 Page 2
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
aforesaid Compromise Deed of 4th May, 2014 of (Annexure-C), I find that
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of
the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to
be deposited by petitioners with the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within
two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 541/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC, registered at
police station Prashant Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No. 3366/2014 Page 3
