Delhi High Court
Parvesh & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 15 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2139/2024 & CRL.M.A. 8295/2024
PARVESH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Preeti Shrivastava, Mr.Amit
Shrivastava and Ms.Uzma Qureshi,
Advocates with Petitioners-in-person.
versus
STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
with SI Preeti Ahlawat, PS South
Rohini.
Mr.Karan Kakkar, Advocate
respondent No.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 petitioners for quashing of
FIR No. 266/2017, under Sections 323/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered
at P.S.: South Rohini.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 and her mother-in-law in person
appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, present FIR was registered
on the complaint of respondent No.2 against her real sister-in-law (petitioner
No.2), her husband (petitioner No.1), her aunt (petitioner No.4) and son of
petitioner No.4 (petitioner No.3).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid FIR was
registered on some misunderstanding over a minor issue and the parties are
closely related to each other. It is also pointed out that all the petitioners have
clean past antecedents and are not involved in any other case.
5. The disputes are stated to have been resolved between the parties with
the intervention of family members vide Compromise Deed dated
16.02.2024.
6. 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.
7. Petitioners 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 any 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. Petitioners as well as respondents No. 2 are present in person and have
been identified by SI Preeti Ahlawat, P.S.: 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 state that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the
parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Parties being closely related intend to put quietus to the proceedings
and move forward in life. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the
matter has 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.
266/2017, under Sections 323/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered at P.S.:
South Rohini and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 15, 2024/v
