Delhi High Court
Sh. Amit Jain & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 20 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 20, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 6128/2018
SH. AMIT JAIN & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma and Ms.
Bharti Rani, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Nitin
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No.398/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi is sought on the basis
of Memorandum of Understanding of 5th March, 2018 arrived at Delhi
Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and on the ground that
petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together happily.
2. Mr. M.S.Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present
in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she
has been identified to be so by SI Nitin on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding of 5th March, 2018 and that she is living
together happily with petitioner-husband. Respondent No.2 affirms the
contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 5th March, 2018
and of her affidavit of 5th October, 2018 supporting this petition and
submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and to restore
cordiality between 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, 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 subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually settled between parties, therefore,
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility.
7. Accordingly, FIR No.398/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners. However, it is made
clear that if the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner-husband
again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand in her way to
have recourse to law.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
v
