Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Lamba & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 18 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 18, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 6444/2018 & Crl.M.A. 49997/2018
OM PRAKASH LAMBA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish Tanwar &
Mr. Lovinder Chaudhary,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Shiv Kumar.
Respondents No.2 & 3 in person
with Mr. S.Chaturvedi, Advocate
+ CRL.M.C. 6459/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50050/2018
RAKESH @ BUNTI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.Chaturvedi, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Shiv Kumar.
Respondent No.2 in person with
Mr. Ashish Tanwar &
Mr. Lovinder Chaudhary,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Crl.M.Cs. 6444/2018 & 6459/2018 Page 1 of 4
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.150/2012,
whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR
No.131/2012, both registered at police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi
is sought. Both the FIRs arise out of one common incident. In FIR
No.150/2012, petitioners Om Prakash and others have been put on trial
for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC and in FIR No. 131/2012,
petitioners Rakesh @ Banti and others have been put on trial for offences
under Sections 325/506/34 IPC. Quashing of these FIRs is sought on the
ground that the misunderstanding which led to this incident, now stands
cleared between the parties.
2. Mr.M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State,
accepts notice in FIR No.131/2012 and submits that Om Prakash Lamba,
who is complainant of this FIR, is present in the Court. Ms. Neelam
Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State in FIR
No.150/2012 accepts notice and submits that Rachit Kansal and Mr.
Rakesh @ Bunti, who are complaints of this FIR, are present in the Court.
SI Shiv Kumar, who is the Investigating Officer of these FIRs, has
identified the private respondents present in the Court as complainants of
these two FIRs.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
4. Complainants of these cross FIRs submit that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of cross FIRs, now stands
cleared and they stand by the affidavits filed in support of these petitions.
They submit both the sides are neighbours and to restore harmony
between the parties, proceedings arising out of these two FIRs be brought
to an end.
5. 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."
7. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. In view of the fact that the incident in question, which led to
lodging of these two FIRs, took place on a trivial issue and the
misunderstanding amongst the parties now stands cleared, this Court
finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of these cross FIRs
would be an exercise in futility.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings arising out of FIR No.150/2012 and
FIR No.131/2012, both registered at police station Sarojini Nagar, New
Delhi shall stand quashed, subject to deposit of cost of ₹10,000/- each in
the above captioned two petitions with the Prime Minister‟s National
Relief Fund within four weeks and after placing on record receipt of
deposit of cost within two weeks thereafter.
10. The above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of
in aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER18, 2018
r
