Delhi High Court
Vinod Yadav & Ors. 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. 6524/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50307/2018
VINOD YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.-State with SI Arun Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person with
Mr.U.A.Khan & Mr. Sharukh
Khan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No.386/2018, under Sections 420/506/120-B IPC,
registered at police station Ghazipur, Delhi is sought, on the premise that
the misunderstanding amongst the parties, which led to registration of
FIR in question, stands cleared now.
2. Upon notice, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2 is the complainant of
FIR in question and he is present in the Court and he has been identified
to be so, by SI Arun Kumar.
3. Respondent No.2 /Complainant submits that today he has received
amount of ₹5,50,000/- by way of demand draft No.051827, dated 17th
December, 2018, drawn on Allahabad Bank, from petitioners and now, no
dispute with petitioners survives and so, proceedings arising out of FIR in
question be brought to an end.
4. 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."
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in
later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
6. Since the misunderstanding which led to lodging of FIR in
question now stands cleared, therefore, this Court finds that continuance
of proceedings arising out of this FIR would be an exercise in futility.
7. Accordingly, subject to petitioners depositing costs of ₹25,000/-
with Prime Minister‟s National Relief Fund within four weeks from today
and placing proof of its deposit on record of this case as well as before
the trial court, FIR No.386/2018, under Sections 420/506/120-B IPC,
registered at police station Ghazipur, Delhi and proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed.
8. This petition and application stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
r
