* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 18, 2018
+ Crl.M.C. 5414/2018 Crl.M.A.34881/2018
SHRI SUNNY CHOPRA ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.U.Mirza, Advocate
STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with SI
Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Nitin
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Quashing of FIR No. 1009/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought by petitioners
on the basis of mediated settlement of 16th November, 2017 arrived at
Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Annexure P-3).
3. Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State 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 her counsel
as well as by SI Sanjay Lal.
5. Counsel for petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties
Crl.M.C. 5414/2018 Page 1 of 3
is a matrimonial dispute, which has been amicably resolved in terms of
mediated settlement of 16th November, 2017 (Annexure P-3).
6. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the terms of
settlement have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the
balance settled amount of ₹2,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing
No.992621, dated 20th October, 2018, drawn on United Bank of India,
Branch Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been
already granted by the family court on 31st August, 2018. Respondent
No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 22nd October, 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.
7. 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:-
“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
Crl.M.C. 5414/2018 Page 2 of 3
8. 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.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No. 1009/2014, under
Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Shakarpur,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed subject to
petitioners depositing cost of ₹10,000/- with Prime Minister‟s National
Relief Fund within four weeks from today. The receipt of deposit of cost
be placed on record within two weeks thereafter.
10. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are
accordingly disposed of.
Crl.M.C. 5414/2018 Page 3 of 3