Karan Kapoor & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER 0/"

24.05.2013 In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No. 207/2011underSections324/34ofthe IPC [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIRNo. 152/2011underSections323/354/452/34ofthe IPC [in Crl. M.C.No.2193/2013]bothregisteredat policestationHazratNizamuddin, New Delhi, is sought. Counsel for petitioners' states that petitioners in the above captioned two petitions happen to be neighbours and due to misunderstanding, some dispute arose between them and they manhandled each other and this culminated into registrationof the aforesaidcross FIRs in questionand that now with the interventionof elderlypersons,interse disputehas been amicablyresolvedin terms of MemorandumofSettlementof21^^May, 2013 by theparties. LearnedCounselfor respondent-Statesubmitsthatthe abovenoted FIRs are cross cases, whose subject matter stands settled vide Memorandumof Settlementof 21^^ May, 2013 arrived at betweenthe parties.The factumofsettlementhasbeenalreadygotverifiedby learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutorfor respondent-State,who submitsthat on the basis of identify proof furnished by the parties, they have been identifiedas SanjayKapur,beingthe firstinformantofFIRNo. 207/2011 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013]&Mohd. Shahid,beingthe first-informant ofFIRNo. 152/2011 [Crl. M.C. No. 2193/2013]and the injured-Satpal SinghYadav@Goldy,Mrs.Amna@Bobby,SanjayKapoor&Sanjivm Page 2 Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013 & ([/ this case. SanjayKapur&Mohd. Shaid,who are the first-informantsoftwo cross afore-notedFIRs, are presentin the Courtand they submitthatthe aforesaidMemorandumofSettlementof21^ May, 2013 has been arrived at of their own free will, which has been already acted upon and they affirmcontentsoftheiraffidavitsplacedon recordgivingno objectionto the quashingofafore-notedFIRsinquestion. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Courthas recognizedthe needofamicableresolutionofdisputesin cases likethe instantone, by observingas under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuationof criminalproceedingswould tantamountto abuse ofprocessoflaw despitesettlementand compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriatethat criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s)is in the affirmative,the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal . proceedings." Consideringthe factthatthe subjectmatterofthe afore-notedFIRs pertains to a trivial dispute, which has been amicably and mutually resolvedin termsofMemorandumofSettlementof21®^May, 2013 and to bringcordialityand peaceamongstthe parties,it wouldbe in the interest ofjusticetoquashthe FIRs inquestion. Accordingly,FIR No. 207/2011 under Sections324/34ofthe IPC Crl M.C. No. 2187/2013& ^3 [in Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013] and FIR No. 152/2011 under Sections 323/354/452/34of the IPG [inGrl. M.G. No.2193/2013]bothregisteredat police station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi are quashed qua petitioners-accused persons. The abovecaptionedtwo petitionsand applicationsare accordingly disposed of. MAY 24, 2013 r 5UNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl. M.C. No. 2187/2013& Page4

$-34 & 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (i) CRL.M.C.2187/2013& Crl. M.A. Nos. 8477/2013& 8478/2013 MOHD.SAHID & ORS. Through: versus STATE NOT OF DELHI Through: Petitioner Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta & Mr. Jitender G., Advocates for complainant + (ii) CRL.M.C.2193/2013& Crl. M.A. Nos. 8497/2013& 8498/2013 KARAN KAPOOR & ORS. Through: versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: Crl.M.C. No.2187/2013 & Petitioners Mr. Tarun Gambhir, Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Mr. Pankaj Mendiratta & Mr. Jitender G., Advocates Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State Mr. V.K. Malik, Mr. Rahul Mahaja, Mr. Rajiv C.M, Advocates for complainant. Pagel 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. CORAM; HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESUNILGAUR