CRL.M.C./9699/2024 of SONPAL & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 9699/2024 & CRL.M.A. 37210/2024

SONPAL & ORS......Petitioners

Through:Mr. L.K. Verma, Mr. Hritik Vermaand Mr. Mohit Verma, Advs.and Mr. Mohit Verma, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with SIMohd. Kafeel, PS Fatehpur Beri andSI Arvind Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar.Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Adv. for R-2to 6.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJANO R R

10.12.2024

1.The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023seeking quashing of FIR No.105/2022 under Sections 308/323/341/34 IPCregistered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and all consequential proceedingsemanating therefrom on the ground that parties have arrived at settlement.

2.Issue notice. Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, learned APP appearing onbehalf of the State, as well as, Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 6 accept notice. Mr. Dagarsubmits that since the FIR is an outcome of fight and the parties havearrived at settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in questionis quashed.

The parties have been identified by their respective counsel and by the

Investigating Officer, i.e., SI Mohd. Kafeel, PS Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and SIArvind Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi.

4.The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR came to beregistered on the complaint of the respondent no.4 on the allegation thatwhen his mother Smt. Ramesh Devi was cleaning outside their house,petitioner no.1 made false allegation that the garbage was thrown in frontof the house of petitioner no.1. This led to scuffle between the partieswhich escalated to the level of fight.

5.During pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at asettlement, terms whereof have been reduced in writing in the form ofMemorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed dated 26.11.2024, copy ofwhich is annexed as Annexure P4 to the present petition.

6.On query posed by this Court, the complainant and otherrespondents, who are present in Court, affirm the factum of settlement andstate that they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

7.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.”

8.In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances ofconviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal

proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise infutility.

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

10.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.105/2022 underSections 308/323/341/34 IPC registered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, Delhi alongwith all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

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

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

DECEMBER 10, 2024

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J