Delhi High Court
Mr. Deepak & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 10 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 10, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 65/2019 & Crl.M.A. 335/2019
MR. DEEPAK & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hitesh Chopra & Mr. Ashok,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI
Manoj Chauhan
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pathak, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.658/2018, under Section 324 IPC, registered
at police station Paschim Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding of 8th December, 2018 reached between
the parties.
Upon notice, Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pathak,
Advocate for respondent No.2, accept notice. Respondent No.2 present in
the Court has been duly identified by his counsel as the complainant/first-
informant of the FIR in question.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide Memorandum of
Understanding of 8th December, 2018 and terms thereof, have been fully
acted upon. He affirms the contents of Memorandum of Understanding of
8th December, 2018 and of his affidavit of 24th December, 2018 filed in
support of 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.
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."
In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding of 8th December, 2018, 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
the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to
be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within four weeks from today and upon placing on record the receipt of
deposit of cost with two weeks thereafter, FIR No.658/2018, under
Section 324 IPC, registered at police station Paschim Vihar, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2019
r
