Delhi High Court
Surender Pratap Pandey & Ors. vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 21 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 21, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 6583/2018
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Respondents No.2 to 4 & 6 in
person with Mr. Rahul Sharma,
Advocate
+ CRL.M.C. 6603/2018
SURENDER PRATAP PANDEY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
Respondent No.2 in person with
Mr. Yogesh Kaushik, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Crl.M.C. 6603/2018
1. In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.980/2014,
whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR
No.979/2014, both registered at police station Neb Sarai, Delhi is sought.
FIR No. 980/2014 has been registered for offences under Sections
354B/323/506/509 IPC and FIR No. 979/2014 has been registered for
offences under Sections 325/509/506/354B/34 IPC. Both the FIRs arise
out of one incident. Quashing of these FIRs is sought on the ground that
the misunderstanding which led to this incident, now stands cleared
between the parties in terms of Compromise Deed of 12th October, 2018.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. Mr.Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State, accepts notice in FIR No.980/2014. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 7 in FIR No.980/2014
and submits that complainants No.5 & 7 are minor and they are
represented through their father, respondent No.2.
4. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State accepts notice in FIR No.979/2014 and submits that Santosh Devi,
complainant of this FIR, is also present in the Court. Complainants have
been identified by their counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent-State on the basis of identify proof produced by them.
5. Complainants of these cross FIRs submit that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of cross FIRs, now stands
Crl.M.C. 6603/2018
cleared. They submit that both the sides are neighbours and to restore
harmony between the parties, proceedings arising out of these two FIRs
be brought to an end.
6. 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."
7. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Supreme Court in a
later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
8. In view of the fact that the incident in question, which led to
lodging of these two FIRs, took place on a trivial issue and the
misunderstanding amongst the parties now stands cleared, this Court
finds that continuance of proceedings arising out of these cross FIRs
would be an exercise in futility.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings arising out of FIR No.980/2014 and
FIR No. 979/2014, both registered at police station Neb Sarai, Delhi shall
stand quashed, subject to deposit of cost of ₹10,000/- each by petitioners
in the above captioned two petitions with the Prime Minister‟s National
Crl.M.C. 6603/2018
Relief Fund within four weeks and after placing proof of deposit of cost
on record of this case as well as before the trial court within two weeks
thereafter.
10. The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 21, 2018
r
Crl.M.C. 6603/2018
