Urmila & ANR. v. State Of NCT Delhi Through Station House Officer & ANR.
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 559/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2284/2024 (Stay) URMILA & ANR.
..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. Manish Miglai, Mr. Lalit Chand Sharma, Mr. Mohit Miglani & Mr.
Lakshay Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Petitioner no. 1 and 2 through VC.
versus STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Ravi Yadav, P.S.
Lajpat Nagar.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for R2 alongwith R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
O R D E R
% 05.02.2024 CRL.M.A. 2285/2024 (Exemption) 1.
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 559/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2284/2024 (Stay) 3.
The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 334/2014, under Sections 323/451/506/509/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the Court of Ms. Archita Garg, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Courts, Delhi.
4.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the latter and respondent no. 2/complainant are neighbours. It is submitted that a trivial dispute resulted into the registration of the present FIR as well as cross FIR No. 335/2014, under Sections 323/451/506/34 of the IPC at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, at the instance of petitioner no. 1 herein. 5.
It is further submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement vide memorandum of understanding/MOU dated 04.12.2023. In pursuance of the same, the parties have agreed to cooperate in quashing of the present FIR as well as crossFIR. The cross-FIR is the subject matter of CRL.M.C. 560/2024, which has been disposed of by an order of the same date. 6.
Petitioners no. 1 and 2 appear through video conferencing, and complainant/respondent no. 2 is present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer, S.I. Ravi Yadav, P.S. Lajpat Nagar.
7.
The complainant/respondent no.2 states that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 8.
In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 9.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes 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 law despite settlement and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 proceeding."
10.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the present FIR No. 334/2014, under Sections 323/451/506/509/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Archita Garg, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi.
11.
In the interest of justice, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 334/2014, under Sections 323/451/506/509/34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar and all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, including the chargesheet pending before the court of Ms. Archita Garg, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi, is hereby quashed.
12.
Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 13.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 5, 2024/bsr The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.