2019 NearLaw (DelhiHC) Online 154
Delhi High Court
JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
FARMAN & ORS. Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 285/2017 & Crl.M.A. 19836/2017
10th January 2019
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Neelam Sharma ASI Tej Prakash
Cases Cited :
Para 6: Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab., (2012) 10 SCC 303
ORDER1. Quashing of FIR No. 291/14, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Kirti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 9th November, 2016 arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-2).2. Notice.3. Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent –State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/firstinformant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by ASI Tej Prakash 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 20th January, 2017 (Annexure P-4) 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. 291/14, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at police station Kirti Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.9. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.