PARVESH & ORS. vs STATE & ANR.
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2139/2024 & CRL.M.A. 8295/2024
PARVESH & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Ms.Preeti Shrivastava, Mr.Amit Shrivastava and Ms.Uzma Qureshi, Advocates with Petitioners-in-person.
versus
STATE AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Preeti Ahlawat, PS South Rohini.
Mr.Karan Kakkar, Advocate respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 266/2017, under Sections 323/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: South Rohini.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2 and her mother-in-law in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, present FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 against her real sister-in-law (petitioner No.2), her husband (petitioner No.1), her aunt (petitioner No.4) and son of petitioner No.4 (petitioner No.3).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid FIR was registered on some misunderstanding over a minor issue and the parties are closely related to each other. It is also pointed out that all the petitioners have clean past antecedents and are not involved in any other case.
5. The disputes are stated to have been resolved between the parties with the intervention of family members vide Compromise Deed dated 16.02.2024.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
7. Petitioners in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.
8. Petitioners as well as respondents No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Preeti Ahlawat, P.S.: South Rohini. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also state that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Parties being closely related intend to put quietus to the proceedings and move forward in life. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 266/2017, under Sections 323/354/354A/506/509/34 IPC, registered at P.S.: South Rohini and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 15, 2024/v
CRL.M.C. 2139/2024 Page 3 of 3