Delhi High Court
Suresh & Anr. vs 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. 6164/2018
SURESH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with ASI
Ram Kishan
Respondents No.2 & 3 in person with Mr.
Shubham Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 2442/2015, under Sections
509/354(B)/506/34/354 IPC, registered at police station Mehrauli, New
Delhi is sought on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to this
incident has been now cleared.
2. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondents No.2 & 3,
present in the Court have been identified to be the complainant party of
FIR in question by ASI Ram Kishan on the basis of identity proof
produced by them.
3. Respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court, submit that the
misunderstanding, which led to the incident in question, now stands
cleared between the parties. They affirm the contents of their affidavits
filed in support of this petition and submit that now no dispute with
petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties,
who are landlord and tenants, 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:-
"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."
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. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance
of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in
futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of this FIR,
now stands cleared between the parties.
7. Accordingly, FIR No. 2442/2015, under Sections
509/354(B)/506/34/354 IPC, registered at police station Mehrauli, New
Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
8. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
v
