Delhi High Court
Bunty @Dinesh vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 15 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2919/2024
BUNTY @DINESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shalu Kumari, Adv.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
SI Prashant, P.S. South Rohini
Mr. B. S. Tomar, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner (husband) for
quashing of FIR No. 734/2007, under Section 324 IPC registered at P.S.:
Rohini and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP 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. In brief, as per the case of petitioner, marriage between petitioner and
respondent no.2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
Two female children were born out of the wedlock. There used to be
differences between parties on the payment of day-to-day expenses by the
petitioner to respondent no. 2 and in an altercation on 27.07.2007, petitioner
is alleged to have assaulted respondent no.2 and hit her with a sharp edged
object which resulted in bleeding from her left arm. On complaint of
respondent No.2, present FIR was registered on 28.07.2007.
4. The disputes are stated to have been amicably settled between the
parties in terms of MoU dated 01.02.2024 and the parties are stated to be
residing together since 2010.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
arrived between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in
question is quashed.
6. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present in-person and have
been identified by SI Prashant, PS: South Rohini. 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. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or 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. Petitioner and respondent no. 2 are related as husband and wife and
intend to put quietus to the proceedings. The settlement shall help them to
move forward in life and promote harmony. The incident allegedly occurred
over a minor altercation at the spur of moment. The chances of conviction
are also bleak in view of settlement between the parties. 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. 734/2007 under Section 324 IPC registered at P.S.: Rohini, Delhi and the
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 learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 15, 2024/ns
