Amit Anand & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER

24.05.2013 Matrimonial dispute is the subject matter of afore-captioned two petitions, which led to registration of FIR No. 258/2011, under Sections Crl.M.C. No. 2183/2013 Crl.M.C. No.2210/2013 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. 326/324 of the IPG, at pohce station Geeta Golony, Delhi [in Grl. M.G. No.2210/2013] and FIR No. 456/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPG, at police station Tilak Nagar, Delhi [in Grl. M.G. NO. 2183/2010], quashing of which is sought in these two petitions. Notice. Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Stateaccepts notice and submits that Smt. Niharika and Mr. Amit Anand, are present in the Gourt and on the basis of identifyproof furnishedby them, they have been identifiedto be the first-informantsof FIRs in question, by SI Karamvir, Investigating Officer of this case. Gounsel for parties point out that due to strained matrimonial relations, a quarrel took place between Smt. Niharika-wife and Amit Anand-husband, which led to registration of afore-noted FIRs and that now the inter se dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutuallyresolvedin terms ofSettlement-Agreementof29^'^ March,2013 (Annexure P-3) through Delhi High Gourt Mediation and Gonciliation Gentre. Gounsel for Amit Anand-husband points out that the aforesaid Settlement-Agreement has been substantially acted upon and in fiirtherance thereof, today the balance and final payment of ?50,000/- by way ofpay order, bearingNo. '064127',dated 2"^ April, 2013, drawn on HDFG Bank, Vikas Marg, Delhi-92 has been handed over to Smt. Niharika-wife, who has accepted the same. Smt. Niharika, present in the Gourt, affirms receipt of the aforesaid amount and confirms that now no dispute with petitioners [in Grl. M.G. No.2183/2013] survives, so she has no objection to the quashing of FIR CrlM.C. No. 2183/2013 Page 2 CrI. M.C. No.2210/2013 in question. Mr. Amit Anand, who is also present in the Court, also affirms the factum of settlement arrived at and submits that these proceedingsbe broughtto anend. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Courthas recognizedthe need ofamicableresolutionof disputesin cases like the instant one, by observing as under;- "Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise betweentwo warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediateand prompt attention of a court which should endeavourto givefull effectto the same unless such compromiseis abhorrentto lawfulcompositionof the society or wouldpromote savagery. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceedinghaving regard to thefact that the dispute between the offenderand the victim has been settled althoughthe offencesare notcompoundable,it doesso as in its opinion, continuationofcriminalproceedings will be an exercise infutility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to ah end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice beingthe ultimateguidingfactor. " Consideringthat the dispute interse parties,which is the subject matter of afore-notedtwo FIRs, has been mutuallyand amicablyresolved in terms of Settlement-Agreementof 29'*^ March, 2013 (AnnexureP-3) throughDelhi High CourtMediationand ConciliationCentre,no fiaiitful purposewould be served in continuingwith the proceedingsarisingout of FIR in question. Consequently, FIR No. 258/2011, under Sections 326/324 of the IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi [in Crl. M.C. CrI. M.C. No. 2183/2013 Page 3 Crl M.C. No. 2210/2013 No.2210/2013] and FIR No. 456/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPG, registered at police station Tilak Nagar, Delhi [in Crl. M.C. No. 2183/2010] and proceedings emanating there-from are quashed qua petitioners/accused. In the light of above, afore-captioned two'petitions and applications are disposed of. MAY 24, 2013 r Crl. M.C. No. 2183/2013 Crl. M.C. No.2210/2013 (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 4

$-31 &47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + % CRL.M.C. 2210/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 8551/2013 NIHARIKA GINOTRA & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Akshit Gadhok, Advocate versus NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Karamvir Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. CRL.M.C 2183/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 8454/2013 AMIT ANAND & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Karamvir Mr. Akshit Gadhlok, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR