Delhi High Court
Sanjay Malhotra & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 28 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 28, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 773/2014
PUSHP LATA KAPOOR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajneesh
+ CRL.M.C. 463/2014 & Crl. M.A.No.7067/2014
SANJAY MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajneesh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No. 78/2013,
under Sections 468/471/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Tilak
Marg, New Delhi [in Crl.M.C.773/2014] is sought and in the above
Crl.M.C.No.773/2014 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.463/2014
captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No. 47/2012, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at Crime Against Women Cell,
Nanakpura, New Delhi [in Crl.M.C.No.463/2014] is sought.
Counsel for petitioners submits that the two FIRs in question
pertain to a matrimonial dispute and therefore, these two petitions can be
heard together. With the consent of both the sides, the above captioned
two petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
Counsel for petitioners submits that the subject matter of these two
FIRs stand mutually and amicably settled between the parties in terms of
settlement recorded in the order of 8th July, 2013 of the learned Family
Court at Patiala House, New Delhi.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that these cross FIRs were got registered by respondent No.2 in each
petition, who are husband and wife and they are present in the Court and
they have been identified to be the complainants/ first-informants of these
FIRs by SI Rajneesh on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun. Mr. Sanjay
Malhotra, present in the Court submits that he is the first-informant of
FIR No.78/2013 and submits that the subject matter of this FIR stands
amicably resolved vide settlement recorded in the order of 8th July, 2013.
Respondent No.2-Smt. Vandana Malhotra, submits that she is the
first-informant of FIR No.47/2012, which is an off-shoot of the
matrimonial dispute, and now the misunderstanding pertaining to alleged
Crl.M.C.No.773/2014 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.463/2014
forgery of caterer bill, stands cleared in terms of settlement recorded in
the order of 8th July, 2013.
Respondent No.2 of both these petitions affirm the contents of
aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits on record supporting this
petition and they submit that now no dispute with each other survives and
so, the proceedings arising out of the FIRs 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
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."
In the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court finds that
continuance of proceedings arising out of these FIRs would be an
exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the above captioned two petitions are allowed and
FIR No. 78/2013, under Sections 468/471/34 of the IPC, registered at
Crl.M.C.No.773/2014 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.463/2014
police station Tilak Marg, New Delhi [in Crl.M.C.773/2014] and FIR No.
47/2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at Crime
Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi [in Crl.M.C.No.463/2014]
and proceedings emanating there-from are quashed.
Before parting with the judgment, I would like to take note of a
glaring error in Family Court's order of 8th July, 2013 pointed out by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. During the
course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State that proceedings in FIR
No. 78/2013 were put on hold by the concerned Family Court at Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi to facilitate accomplishment of settlement in
toto, although said Family Court had no jurisdiction to do so.
There is substance in the stand taken by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State. Let the Family Courts be reminded that
they have no jurisdiction to put on hold criminal prosecution, even for the
purpose of facilitating compromise. Copy of this order be sent to District
& Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for its circulation to
all the Family Courts.
These petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.773/2014 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.463/2014
