Delhi High Court
Sandeep Gupta & Anr vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 2 February, 2016
Author: Suresh Kait
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 2nd February, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. No.437/2016
SANDEEP GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Gurmehar S Sistani, Adv
with petitioners.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma,
APP for the State with ASI
Om Prakash, PS Hauz Khas,
Delhi in person.
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Jha, Adv
for R2 with R2/complainant
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A.No.1838/2016 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C. No.437/2016
1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.328/2012
registered at Police Station Hauz Khas for the offences punishable under
Sections 323/448/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that
the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2,
Devender Narang and police has filed the charge sheet, however charges
are yet to be framed by learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, the respondent
No.2 has amicably settled his disputes with the petitioners vide agreement
settlement dated 17.04.2014 arrived between them before Mediation
Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Pursuant to such settlement, payment
of agreed amount has already been made by the parties. Consequent to
such settlement, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue his case
anymore against them and has no objection, if the present petition is
allowed.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court through learned
counsel, above named and has also been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
under instructions does not dispute as to what is stated by learned counsel
for petitioners and consequent to settlement and payment of agreed
amount, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue this case further and has
no objection if the present petition is allowed. The affidavit of respondent
No.2 is at Page No.36 of the petition.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that matter is at the initial stage of trail. Since the parties
have amicably settled the matter and the respondent No.2/ complainant
does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, looking
to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in
continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present
petition is allowed.
5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 323/448 of the IPC
is compoundable and consequent to filing of charge sheet, matter is
pending with learned Trial Court for framing of charges. However,
parties have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P
C, instead of moving before learned Trial Court for compounding the
matter.
6. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the
aforesaid settlement dated 17.04.2014 and undertake to remain bound by
the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, considering the settlement arrived
at between the parties and the statement of respondent No.1&2, I am of
the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility.
8. Consequently, FIR No.328/2012 registered at Police Station Hauz
Khas for the offences punishable under Sections 323/448/34 of the IPC
and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to
cost.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
Crl. M.A.No.1837/2016 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
M/jg
