* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 20, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 6528/2018 C.M. 50325/2018
ROHIT BHARGAVA ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Gupta Mr. Deepak
Rohilla, Advocates
Versus
STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with
WSI Kailah Kain
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of FIR No. 23/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC,
registered at police station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is sought by
petitioners on the basis of mediated settlement of 15th October, 2018
arrived at Counseling Cell, Family Courts, New Delhi (Annexure B).
2. Upon notice, Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that
respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of
the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by WSI Kailash
Ken.
3. Counsel for petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties
Crl.M.C. 6528/2018 Page 1 of 3
is a matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably resolved in terms of
mediated settlement of 15th October, 2018 (Annexure -B).
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the terms of
settlement have been fully acted upon and that divorce by mutual consent
has been already granted by the family court on 20th November, 2018.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 20th November,
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.
5. 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.”
6. 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
Crl.M.C. 6528/2018 Page 2 of 3
would be an exercise in futility.
7. Accordingly FIR No. 23/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed subject to
petitioners depositing cost of ₹30,000/- with Prime Minister‟s National
Relief Fund within four weeks from today and after receipt of deposit of
cost is placed on record within two weeks thereafter.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are
accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 20, 2018
r
Crl.M.C. 6528/2018 Page 3 of 3
