Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar Tandon & Anr vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 20, 2018
+ Crl.M.C.4370/2017
ASHWANI KUMAR TANDON & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Idresh Ahemad, Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State
with SI Balwan Singh, and W/SI
Shivali, P.S. Ashok Vihar
Mr. Gaurav Chowdhary, Advocate
with Attorney of Respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 267/2004, under Sections 453/506/34 IPC,
registered at police station Ashok Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 2nd November, 2016 arrived at Delhi Mediation
Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-5 ).
2. Notice.
3. Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Gaurav Chowdhary, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that son of respondent No.2 is present in the Court, who is
complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he has been
identified to be so by counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as by SI
Balwan Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
5. Son of respondent No. 2 is present in Court has handed over
Special Power of Attorney given by respondent No. 2 to him whereby he
has been authorized to appear in this case.
6. Mr. Raman Kumar Tandon, son of respondent No. 2 present in
Court, affirms the contents of the Settlement Agreement of 2nd November,
2016 and he submits that now no dispute remains and so, these
proceedings be brought to an end.
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."
7. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in
later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. Upon hearing, I find that continuance of the proceedings arising
out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
9. Accordingly, subject to cost of `50,000/- to be deposited by
petitioner with Prime Minister‟s National Relief Fund within four weeks
from today and on placing on record, the receipt of cost, FIR No.
267/2004, under Sections 453/506/34 IPC, registered at police station
Ashok Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed.
10. This petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
p‟ma
