Delhi High Court
Sh. Manish Soni And Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr. on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1062/2024
SH. MANISH SONI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shubham Jain and Mr. Haider
Khan, Advocates with Petitioners
in-person.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Ms.
Anvita Bhandari, Mr. Kunal Mittal,
Mr. Arjit Mittal and Mr. Vaibhav
Vats, Advocates and SI Krantiveer
Singh, PS: Madhu Vihar.
Mr. Lalit Kant Gautam, Adv for R-2
with R-2 in -person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 1062/2024
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been
preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0116/2022,
under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at P.S.: Madhu Vihar and proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2-in-person appear on advance
notice and accept notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the genesis of the
alleged incident relates to matrimonial differences between the parties, since
a complaint was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. The
alleged incident is alleged to have occurred during the course of
investigation.
4. The disputes have been amicably resolved between the parties vide
settlement deed dated 17.11.2023. Also, a separate petition is stated to have
been preferred by petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0212/2022, under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S.: Ghazipur.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been
identified by SI Krantiveer Singh, PS: Madhu Vihar, Delhi. I have interacted
with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled
between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2
also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the
parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
7. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same are to be used to secure the
ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases,
the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be
used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no
generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is
required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and
consider the impact on the society.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the FIR arises out of
matrimonial disputes which have been amicably settled between the parties,
no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation
of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
Consequently, FIR No. 0116/2022, under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at
P.S.: Madhu Vihar and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 03, 2024/R
