← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./475/2008

Raghubir Singh & ORS. v. Jagdish Kaur

2018-05-10Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva2 pages

$~60 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 475/2008 RAGHUBIR SINGH & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Bhumika Kapoor and Mr. Ajay Kohli, Advs.

with petitioners in person versus JAGDISH KAUR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. P. Newani, Adv. with respondent in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 10.05.2018 CRL.M.C. 475/2008 & Crl. M.A. 7930/2018 (bring settlement agreement on record) 1.

Amended memo of parties consequent to order dated 04.05.2018 has been filed. The same is taken on record.

2.

The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 02.12.2006 summoning the petitioner to face trial under Sections 417/467/468/120-B of the IPC and further seek quashing of the complaint filed by respondent no. 1. 3.

The complainant-respondent no. 1 is the sister of the petitioners. The subject disputes emanated out of a family dispute pertaining to the estates of their later father.

4.

Parties were referred to mediation. Parties have entered into a settlement before Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre and CRL.M.C. 475/2008

settlement agreement dated 13.02.2018 has been executed. It is noticed that in the mediation not only the parties but also the other family members had also participated. The parties have settled all disputes not only pertaining to the present complaint but also qua all civil litigations between them. 5.

Respondent no. 1 is present in Court in person. She confirms the settlement agreement and submits that parties have settled their disputes and she does not wish to press her complaint any further. 6.

I have perused the terms of settlement and find the same to be lawful. It is also noticed that the settlement is a holistic settlement between the families to restore family peace and harmony. 7.

Keeping in view the settlement between the parties as also the fact that the respondent no. 1 has stated that she does not wish to press her complaint, I am of the view that the proceedings should be put to an end so that the peace and harmony should be restored between the families. 8.

Accordingly, the petition and the application are allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2006 as well as the Complaint Case No. 3300/1 of 2006 and all consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.

9.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 10, 2018 'rs'

CRL.M.C. 475/2008