Nitin Singh & Ors v. State & Anr

ORDER

22.05.2013 Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional PublicProsecutorfor respondent-Statewith SINitin Singh& WSI Josepha Kujur RespondentNo. 2 inperson Quashingof FIR No. 39/2011,under Sections498A/406/34of the IPG, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, Delhi is sought by petitionersin thispetition. Learned counsel for petitioners informs that the matrimonial dispute,whichis the subjectmatterofFIR in question,has beensettledin termsofSettlementof9"^ April,2012 (AnnexureP-2) throughDelhiHigh GourtMediationand ConciliationCentreand in terms thereof,decreeof divorce has been already granted by the matrimonial court on 4"^ February,2013 (AnnexureP-3). Notice. Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutoraccepts notice for Crl. M.C. No.2034/2013 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. respondent-State. Notice. Mr. Sunil Sharma, AdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondentNo.2 is present in the Court and she has been identifiedas the complainantfirst-informantof FIRin questionby SI NItin,InvestigatingOfficerofthis case. Counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of aforesaid settlement,balance and final sum of Rs.4,00,000/-by way of demand draft, bearingNo. '277830',dated 16^^ March, 2013, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Service Branch, Delhi in the name of respondentNo.2-Prema Kapoorhas beenhandedoverto her, who has acceptedthe same. RespondentNo.2 presentin the Court submits now the aforesaid settlementhas been fully acted upon, so she has no grievanceagainst petitionersand therefore,proceedingsarising from FIR in question, be quashed. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Courthas recognizedthe need ofamicableresolutionofdisputesin cases likethe instantone, by observingas under:- Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warringgroups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromiseis abhorrentto lawfulcompositionofthe society or wouldpromotesavagery. Where the High Courtquashesa criminalproceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has-been settled although the offencesare not compoundable,it doesso as in its opinion, CrI. M.C. No.2034/2013 > continuationofcriminalproceedingswill be an exercisein futility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute betweenthepartiesisputto an endandpeace is restored; securing the ends ofjustice being the ultimate guiding factor." Sincethis matrimonialdispute,which is the subjectmatterofFIR in question,standsvoluntarily,mutuallyand amicablysettledbetweenthe parties,no usefulpurposewouldbe servedby continuingtheproceedings arisingoutof FIR in question. Consequentially,Quashing of FIR No. 39/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34ofthe IPC, registeredat Police StationSaritaVihar, Delhi andproceedingsemanatingtherefromare quashedquapetitioners. Withaforesaidobservations,thispetitionis disposedof MAY 22, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE CrI. M.C. No.2034/2013

$-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.2034/2013& Crl. M.A. No. 8008/2013 NITINSINGH&ORS. Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Sharma&Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocates % versus STATE & ANR. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR