CRL.M.C./3081/2024 of SH. ANIL KUMAR & ORS. Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 3081/2024

SH. ANIL KUMAR & ORS...... Petitioners

Through:Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:Mr Raj Kumar, APP for the Statewith SI Vinay, PS Laxmi Nagar.Mr. R.S. Sharma, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R R%24.04.2024

CRL.M.A. 11931/2024 (exemption)

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 3081/2024

3.The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIRNo.0766/2017 under Sections 323/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860registered at P.S. Shakarpur on the ground that the parties have arrived at asettlement.

4.Issue notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice.

5.He submits that since the present FIR is an outcome of matrimonialdispute between the respondent no.2 and her husband, the State has noobjection in case the present FIR is quashed.

6.Petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, brother-in-law and sister-in-law ofrespondent no.2 as well as respondent no.2, are present in Court whereaspetitioner no.3, sister of sister-in-law of respondent no.2, has joined throughVC. They have been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners, aswell as, by the Investigating Officer.

7.The case of the prosecution is that respondent no.2 was married to oneVinod Kumar on 10.02.2008.On account of temperamental issues, theystarted living separately from the year 2014. One male child was born out ofthe said wedlock who is in care and custody of the respondent no.2. Thedispute between the husband and wife also led to the registration of presentFIR in which petitioners herein were arraigned as accused.

8.During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no.2 and herhusband arrived at settlement, in terms whereof full and final settlementamount of Rs.15 lacs was paid to respondent no.2 by her husband. The saidsettlement is annexed as Annexure-D to the present petition.

9.In terms of the aforesaid settlement, which had taken place before theDelhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, it was also agreed thatthe respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for quashing of theaforesaid FIR.

10.Respondent no.2 is present in Court. On query posed by the Court,she affirms the factum of settlement and also acknowledges having receivedthe entire settlement amount. She further states that she has no objection ifthe aforesaid FIR is quashed.

11.At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of theSupreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303:(SCC p. 340, para 58)

“58. Where the High Court quashes criminal proceeding havingregard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and thevictimhasbeensettledalthoughtheoffencesarenotcompoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice inthe case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to anend and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being theultimate guiding factor.”

12.In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances ofconviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminalproceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise infutility.

13.It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all theother proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

14.It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all otherproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

15.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 0766/2017under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at PS Shakarpur, Delhi along withall other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

16.The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

17.Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

APRIL 24, 2024

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J