Ramesh Chand & Anr. vs State & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 689 Del

$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on:29th January, 2016

+                       Crl. M.C. No.385/2016

RAMESH CHAND & ANR.                                         ..... Petitioners
            Represented by:               Mr. Akshay Bhatia, Advocate
                                          with Petitioners in person.
                        Versus

STATE & ANR.                                              ..... Respondents
                        Represented by:   Mr.Amit Ahlawat,
                                          Additional Public Prosecutor
                                          for the State with ASI Ram
                                          Avtar, PS Begum Pur.
                                          Mr.Bharat Sharma, Advocate
                                          for Respondent No.2 with
                                          Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. Nos.1631-32/2016 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications are allowed.

Crl. M.C. No.385/2016

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 29/2013 registered at Police Station Begum Pur, Delhi, for the

offences punishable under Sections 323/341/357/506/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, Ram Sharan Singh. It is noted that daughter of the petitioner No.1, was married to son of respondent No.2, who lodged a case bearing FIR No.191/2011 at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/342/328/34 IPC against her husband and other family members including the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have settled their disputes before the Conciliation Cell, Family Court, Tis Hazari Delhi, vide settlement dated 05.05.2014, whereby the parties agreed to withdraw the aforesaid matrimonial case, which has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2015 passed in Crl.M.C.No.1265/2015. In the aforesaid settlement, it was also agreed that respondent No.2 shall withdraw the present FIR. Moreover, pursuant to aforesaid settlement, marriage between the son of the respondent No.2 and daughter of the petitioner No.1 has already been dissolved on 12.12.2014. Thus, the respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue this case further against the petitioners and has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

3. The respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court with his counsel and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned counsel under instructions does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The

respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 27.01.2016 filed in support of the present petition and submits that he has no complaints whatsoever against any of the petitioners and does not want to pursue the case further.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the case is at the initial stage of investigation as the chargesheet has not yet been filed. He further submits that since this is a family dispute, parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution case, 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 Sections 323/341/357 /506/34 IPC is compoundable and matter is pending investigation with the police. As such, parties invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of moving before the learned Trial Court for compounding the matter.

6. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 05.05.2014 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.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, 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. 29/2013 registered at Police Station Begum Pur, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/ 341/357/506/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) JANUARY 29, 2016 sb