Delhi High Court
Narender Tomar & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 18 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 18, 2018
+ CRL.M.C.5282/2017
NARENDER TOMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ravi Kumar, P.S.
Narela
Respondents No.2 & 3 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No.184/2014, under Sections 308/34 of IPC
registered at police station Narela, Delhi is sought by petitioners on the
ground that a trivial quarrel had led to registration of the FIR in question
and the misunderstanding now stands cleared vide Memorandum of
Understanding of 11th December, 2017 (Annexure D-Colly.). Quashing
of FIR under Section 174-A of IPC is also sought by petitioner-Jagbir
Singh, who claims to be an ex-serviceman, while submitting that in FIR
under Section 174-A of IPC, he has already remained behind bars for
about two and half months.
2. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court, are the
complainant party i.e. first informant and injured of this case and they
have been identified to be so by SI Ravi Kumar on the basis of identity
proof produced by them.
3. Respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court, affirm the contents of
aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and of their affidavits placed
on record and submit that since no dispute with petitioners now survives
and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
4. 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:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or
continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings."
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, I find that
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of
the FIR, now stands amicably cleared between the parties vide aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure-D colly.). As regards FIR
under Section 174-A of IPC, I find that petitioner-Jagbir Singh has
already remained behind bars for about two and half months and so, the
proceedings arising out of this FIR also deserve to be brought to an end.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `10,000/-
each to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s National Relief
Fund within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of
costs before the trial court within two weeks thereafter, FIR No.184/2014,
under Sections 308/34 of IPC registered at police station Narela, Delhi
and the FIR under Section 174-A of IPC against petitioner-Jagbir Singh
and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.
8. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2018
s
