Mahesh Verma vs State & Anr.
2018 Latest Caselaw 7540 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Order: December 19, 2018

+      CRL.M.C. 6492/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50173/2018
       MAHESH VERMA                                    ..... Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. Nishant Rai, Advocate

                         Versus

       STATE & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                         Through: Ms. Asha Tiwari, Additional
                         Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State
                         with ASI Pardeep Kumar
                         Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Neeraj
                         Kapoor & Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Quashing of FIR No.301/2018, under Sections 279/337 IPC, registered at police station Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement Agreement of 6th December, 2018.

2. Upon notice, Ms. Ashal Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and Mr. Neeraj Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2, submit that respondent No.2 is the complainant of the FIR in question and he is present in the Court and he has been identified to be so, by ASI Pradeep Kumar. Complainant affirms the contents of his affidavit of 14th December, 2018 supporting this petition and submits that now

misunderstanding with petitioner stands cleared and so, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.

3. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

4. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

5. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, I find that the offence 279/337 IPC is punishable with fine alone also. In view of the fact that the misunderstanding between the parties stand cleared, this Court finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of this FIR would be an exercise in futility.

6. Accordingly, subject to petitioner depositing cost of `50,000/- with Prime Minister‟s National Relief Fund within four weeks from today and

placing proof of deposit on record of this case as well as before the trial court, FIR No.301/2018, under Sections 279/337 IPC, registered at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.

7. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER19, 2018 r