Delhi High Court
Mohd. Kafil vs The State Of Delhi & Anr. on 10 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 10, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4911/2018
MOHD. KAFIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kr. Upadhyay and Mr.
Zakir Hussain, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Omveer Singh, P.S. Nand Nagri.
Mr. Kali Charan, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 413/2011, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at police station
Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 26th
April, 2016 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi (Annexure P-4).
2. Notice.
3. Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Kali Charan, 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 SI Omveer Singh 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
and terms thereof have been fully acted upon. Respondent No.2 affirms
the contents of aforesaid Settlement and of her affidavit of 28th May, 2018
supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, 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 and FIR No. 413/2011, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
registered at police station Nand Nagri, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2019
p'ma
