Murari Kant Gupta & Ors v. State & Ors

ORDER

29.05.2013 Quashing of FIR No.225/2013 under Sections 452/427/323/406/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. 229112013) and FIR No.226/2013 under Sections 324/323/34 of !PC registered at P.S. Dabri, Crl.MC. 229112013 & 229212013 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. .... ,__._:.. Delhi (in Crl. M.C. 2292/2013) is sought by petitioners while asserting that both these petitions pertain to incident of 1st May, 2013 and FIR No.226/2013 is a cross FIR against FIR No.225/2013 and the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared vide Memorandum of Understanding of22nd May, 2013. Notice. Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent-State. In FIR No.225/2013, respondents No. 2 to 4, present in the Court, accept notice and they are identified to be the complainants/injured persons in FIRNo.225/2013 by SI Manmohan. Likewise respondents No. 2 to 7 accept notice and they have been identified to be the complainant party/injured persons in FIR No.226/2013 by Sl Manmohan. Complainant party/injured persons in both these FIRs submit that they are neighbours at their workplace and with the intervention of common friends and business community members, the misunderstanding between the parties has been now cleared and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs in question. Complainant party/injured persons in both these FIRs affirm the contents of their respective affidavits. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of Crl.MC. 229112013 & 229212013 Page2 • law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that 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. " Considering that the incident in question arose out of a triviality and the misunderstanding between the parties has been now cleared, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of these two FIRs would be an exercise in futility. ' Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and FIR No.225/2013 under Sections 452/427/323/406/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. 229112013) and FIR No.226/2013 under Sections 324/323/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. 2292/20 13) and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed qua accused persons while impressing upon both the sides to maintain good behaviour in future. Both the petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of. MAY 29,2013 s Crl.MC. 229112013 & 2292/2013 (SUNIL GAUR) Judge Page3

·( & 27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 229112013 & Crl.M.A. 885112013 MURARI KANT GUPTA & ORS .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Rajesh Kaushik and Mr. Lokur Raza, Advocates versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Manmohan Y adav and ASI Ram Niwas + 2292/2013 & Crl.M.A. 8854/2013 SANDEEP CHAUDHARY@ SONU & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sameer Chandra, Mr. Rajesh Kaushik and Mr. Lokur Raza, Advocates versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Manmohan Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR