* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 20, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3199/2018
OMBEER SINGH @ OMBIR SINGH ORS …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shailender Mr. N.P.Singh,
Advocates
Versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ANR …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Aman Kumar
Respondent No. 2 in person with
Ms. Harshita Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 57/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC,
registered at police station CAW Cell Nanakpura, New Delhi is sought by
petitioners on the basis of mediated settlement of 1 st February, 2017
(Annexure P-2).
2. Upon notice, Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, is present
in the Court and she has been identified to be the complainant of FIR in
question by ASI Aman Kumar.
3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the terms of
settlement 1st February, 2017 (Annexure P-2) have been fully acted upon,
CRL.M.C. 3199/2018 Page 1 of 3
as today she has received demand draft bearing No. 240977, dated 27 th
November, 2018, amounting to ₹2,25,000/- drawn on Bank of India,
Faridabad Branch, Haryana. She submits that divorce by mutual consent
has been already granted by the family court on 13th November, 2017.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 2nd May, 2018
supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be
brought to an end.
4. In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, Supreme
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise
between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a court which should
endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such
compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the
society or would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
offender and the victim has been settled although the
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its
opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that
the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace
is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor.”
5. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
CRL.M.C. 3199/2018 Page 2 of 3
6. Accordingly, FIR No. 57/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station CAW Cell Nanakpura, New Delhi and
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
7. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
v
CRL.M.C. 3199/2018 Page 3 of 3
