Delhi High Court
Saurabh Arora & Ors vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi ) & Anr on 21 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 21, 2018
+ Crl.M.C. 6625/2018 & Crl.M.A. 50694/2018
SAURABH ARORA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Anish
Sharma, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Harish Chander
Respondent No.2 in person with
Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Amrita
Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 700/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34/509
of IPC, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Settlement of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) arrived at
Counselling Cell, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Notice.
3. Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts
notice for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State 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 her counsel
as well as by ASI Harish Chander on the basis of identity proof produced
by her.
5. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Settlement
of 14th May, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully acted
upon as today she has received amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of
demand draft bearing No. 481913, dated 7th December, 2018. She submits
that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family
court on 11th September, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of
her affidavit filed in support of this petition and submits that the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question 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:-
"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. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to
be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund within four
weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost before this
Court as well as in the trial court, F.I.R. No. 700/2015, under Sections
406/498-A/34/509 of IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
DASTI.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 21, 2018
p‟ma
