Delhi High Court
Kamlesh & Anr vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 May, 2016
#40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.05.2016
W.P.(CRL) 1526/2016
KAMLESH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Criminal) with
SI Jogendra Kumar, PS- Model Town
for R-1
Ms. Richa Singh, Advocate for the
R-2/complainant along with the
complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.7975/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
W.P.(CRL) 1526/2016
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
seeking quashing of FIR No.70/2013, under Section 420 IPC, registered at
Police Station- Model Town, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The subject FIR came to be registered by Saroj, respondent
No.2/complainant herein, against the petitioners, among which the petitioner
No.1 is admittedly her old friend, on an allegation that the latter had taken
money on loan from the former and refused to pay her back despite repeated
entreaties in that behalf.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 state that the parties
have settled their disputes amicably out of which the subject FIR has been
registered. The salient terms and conditions of the amicable resolution of the
disputes between the parties are enshrined in the compromise deed dated
11.01.2016 annexed as Annexure B to this petition. The salient terms and
conditions of the compromise deed dated 11.01.2016 are as follows:-
"1. The FIRST PARTY has compromised the
matter regarding the above said FIR with the
SECOND PARTY with the help of the
respectable people of the locality and other
mutual friends and no animosity remain
between the first party and second party.
2. The FIRST PARTY has no more differences
left with the SECOND PARTY and
therefore wants to compound the matter with
them as he does not want to pursue the
above said FIR further.
3. That both the parties have reached this
compromise with free consent and with the
interest of maintaining peace and
brotherhood in the locality.
4. That the FIRST PARTY hereby also agree
to help in compounding/quashing the case
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
subject to all cost born by the second party."
4. Pursuant to the afore-stated compromise deed dated 11.01.2016,
counsel appearing on behalf of Saroj, complainant/respondent No.2 herein,
states that certain money that was advanced on loan to the petitioners has
since been recovered from the latter and, therefore, she has no grievance left
against the petitioners.
5. Saroj, complainant/respondent No.2, who is present in person and has
been duly identified by IO SI Jogendra Kumar, Police Station- Model Town,
states that in view of the afore-stated amicable resolution, she is no longer
keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.
6. In the present case, it is observed that the offence in the subject FIR
does not fall within the exempted categories of serious/heinous offences
which ought not to be quashed on the ground of an amicable resolution of
the disputes. [Ref. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported as
(2012) 10 SCC 303]. The offences alleged to have been committed in the
subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.
7. In view of the foregoing, since the dispute which resulted in the
registration of the subject FIR has already been resolved amicably by and
between the parties without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, no
useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the
proceedings arising therefrom.
8. Consequently, FIR No.70/2013, under Section 420 IPC, registered at
Police Station- Model Town, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby set aside and quashed qua both the petitioners.
9. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 16, 2016
dn
