2019 NearLaw (DelhiHC) Online 195
Delhi High Court

JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

SH. MANISH CHOPRA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.

CRL.M.C. 107/2019 & Crl.M.A. 471/2019

11th January 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Sandeep Kaushik
Respondent Counsel: Mr. M.P.Singh SI Rajbir Singh Mr. Nishant Anand Ms. Harsha Sharma

Mr MPSingh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Rajbir Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her as well as by her counsel.
Agreement of 8th October, 2018 (Annexure P-3) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon, as today she has received the amount of Rs 3,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No858652, dated 1st December, 2018, drawn on Indian Bank, Branch Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
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.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Ministers National Relief Fund within four weeks from today and upon placing on record the receipt of deposit of cost within two weeks thereafter, FIR No486/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
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 within two weeks thereafter, FIR No486/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

Cases Cited :
Para 3: Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303

JUDGEMENT

Quashing of FIR No.486/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement-Agreement of 8th October, 2018 arrived at Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Annexure P-3).
Notice.
Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Rajbir Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her as well as by her counsel.

2. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide SettlementCrl. Agreement of 8th October, 2018 (Annexure P-3) and terms thereof have been fully acted upon, as today she has received the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.858652, dated 1st December, 2018, drawn on Indian Bank, Branch Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. She affirms that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 30th November, 2018 (Annexure P-4). Respondents No.2 also affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th 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.

3. 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.”

4. 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.

5. 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 within two weeks thereafter, FIR No.486/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.