Delhi High Court
Rakesh & Ors vs State Delhi Admin & Anr on 11 September, 2017
$~11, 18 to 20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.09.2017
+ CRL.M.C. 2199/2017
SHRI JASRAJ @ RAJAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
along with petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State
with ASI Sudesh, P.S. Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi and
ASI Veena Sharma, DIU/SWD, Delhi
Mr. Charanjit Sharma, for respondents along with
R-2 and R-3 in person.
+ W.P.(CRL) 1613/2017
RAKESH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate along
with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE DELHI ADMIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate for
Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State with W/SI
Manju, CAW/Cell, Dwarka, Delhi.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-2
along with respondent No.2 in person.
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
W.P. (CRL). No.1616 /2017 & W.P. (CRL) 1637/2017 Page 1 of 6
+ W.P.(CRL) 1616/2017
RAKESH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate along
with petitioners in person
versus
STATE DELHI ADMIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate for
Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State with W/SI
Manju, CAW/Cell, Dwarka, Delhi.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-2
along with respondent No.2 in person.
+ W.P.(CRL) 1637/2017
SHRI JASRAJ @ RAJAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
along with petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State with
ASI Sudesh, P.S. Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi and W/SI
Veena, DIU/SWD, Delhi.
Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for R-2 and R-3
along with respondents No.2 and 3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.C. 2199/2017
1. In this petition, respondents No.2 to 3 appear in person. They are
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
being represented by their counsel. They are duly identified by IO ASI
Sudesh.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of
the FIR bearing No.321/2014, registered on 13.12.2014 against them,
with Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, District South West, Delhi under
Sections 452/354/325/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent no.2.
W.P.(CRL) 1613/2017
3. In this petition, respondent No.2 appears in person. She is being
represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO W/SI Manju.
4. The petitioners have approached to this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing
of the FIR bearing No.198/2016, registered on 10.10.2016 against
them, with Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, District South West, Delhi
under Sections 354/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC on the complaint of
respondent no.2.
W.P.(CRL) 1616/2017
5. In this petition, respondent No.2 appears in person. She is being
represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO W/SI Manju.
6. The petitioners have approached to this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing
of the FIR bearing No.262/2014, registered on 23.10.2014 against
them, with Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, District South West, Delhi
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
under Sections 354(D)/324/506/34 IPC on the complaint of
respondent no.2.
W.P.(CRL) 1637/2017
7. In this petition, respondents No.2 & 3 appear in person. They are
being represented by their counsel. They are duly identified by IO SI
Veena.
8. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of
the FIR bearing No.197/2016, registered on 10.10.2016 against them,
with Police Station Najafgarh, District South West, Delhi under
Sections 354/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent
no.2.
9. In the above said four matters, it is submitted that the petitioners and
respondents/complainants are family members and related to each
other. It is further submitted that they are residing in the same
building. It is further submitted that all the parties have amicably
resolved and settled their disputes on 15.03.2017. The family
settlement deed dated 15.03.2017 was reduced in writing. Copy of the
settlement deed is placed on record.
10. The complainants in all the four cases submit that they have settled
and resolved all their disputes with the respective petitioners without
any force, coercion or duress. It is submitted by all the complainants
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
in all the aforesaid four FIRs that they do not want to pursue the said
FIRs. They submit that in view of the settlement, the said FIRs may
be quashed.
11. Learned APP as well as learned ASC through IO submits that in all
the FIRs charge sheets have already been filed.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 while elaborating the nature of cases in which FIR
can be quashed after a settlement has been arrived at between the
victim and accused held as under:-
"29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves."
13. The parties in the present case are related to each other and reside in
the same property which is the subject matter of the dispute. A Civil
Suit bearing CS(OS) No.3895/2014 which is still pending
adjudication was also filed by respondent No.3 and Shri Surjeet Singh
against petitioner No.1 and Shri Ram Kumar for partition and
permanent injunction in respect of this property where all parties are
residing. All the parties have amicably resolved and settled all their
disputes by way of compromise deed dated 15.03.2017 by which they
have decided to partition the said property as per the compromise
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
deed dated 15.03.2017 and settle all their disputes. All the parties are
related to each other and belong to the same family and since this
criminal case has a predominantly civil character which is arising out
of a property dispute which has now been settled, therefore, no fruitful
purpose would be served in pursuing the said FIRs. In light of the
principle laid down in Narinder Singh's case (supra) and in the
circumstances of the case, to maintain peace and harmony in the
society and to secure ends of justice, (1) FIR bearing No.321/2014,
registered on 13.12.2014, under Sections 452/354/325/34 IPC, (2) FIR
bearing No.198/2016, registered on 10.10.2016 under Sections
354/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC, (3) FIR bearing No.262/2014, registered
on 23.10.2014 under Sections 354(D)/324/506/34 IPC & (4) FIR
bearing No.197/2016, registered on 10.10.2016, under Sections
354/354(B)/506/509/34 IPC with Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan,
South-West District, Delhi and proceedings arising out of the said
FIRs are hereby quashed.
14. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
15. Dasti.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
"sandeep"
CRL. M.C 2199/2017, W.P. (CRL). No.1613 /2017,
