Vishal Gupta vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1217686
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnSep-06-2018
AppellantVishal Gupta
RespondentState (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Excerpt:
judgment delivered on:06. 09.2018 $~78 & 79 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi % + + crl.m.c. 4510/2018 vishal gupta state (govt of nct of delhi) & anr ........ respondents crl.m.c. 4511/2018 ram vilas gupta & ors state (govt of nct of delhi) & anr ........ respondents ........ petitioner ........ petitioners versus versus mr. keshav verma, advocate. advocates who appeared in this case: for the... petitioners : for the... respondents: coram:-"hon’ble mr justice sanjeev sachdeva mr. kewal singh ahuja, app for the state. si devi lal, ps maurya enclave. judgment0609.2018 sanjeev sachdeva, j.(oral) crl. m.a. 31480/2018 (exemption) in crl.m.c. 4510/2018 crl. m.a. 31483/2018 (exemption) in crl.m.c. 4511/2018 exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.c. 4510/2018 & crl.m.c. 4511/2018 the petitioner in crl.m.c. 4510/2018 seeks quashing of fir1 crl.m.c. 4510/2018 & crl.m.c. 4511/2018 page 1 of 3 no.286/2014 under sections 354/354-d/506/509 ipc, police station maurya enclave. the petitioners in crl.m.c. 4511/2018 seek quashing of fir no.893/2014 under sections 498a/4ipc, police station maurya enclave, based on a settlement 2. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ms. jyoti singhal, sister-in-law of the respondent no.2/complainant though named in the fir but was not chargesheeted. he further submits that she has also signed the memorandum of settlement between the parties.3. the subject fir emanates out of discord between the daughter- in-law and the family of the husband. there is no dispute between the husband and wife.4. learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes and memorandum of understanding-cum- compromise deed-cum-family settlement deed dated 29.05.2018 has been executed. learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement is a holistic settlement between the entire family and that all disputes between the parties have been fully and finally settled and now there is no dispute pending between the parties.5. learned counsel for the parties further submit that civil proceedings, which were initiated between the parties, have already been settled in terms of the settlement and appropriate decree has been crl.m.c. 4510/2018 & crl.m.c. 4511/2018 page 2 of 3 passed.6. respondent no.2 is present in person and is identified by the investigating officer. she submits that she has settled her disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to prosecute the criminal complaints any further and has no objection to the quashing of the subject firs.7. in view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent no.2 does not wish to press her complaints, 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. it would be expedient to quash the subject fir and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.8. in view of the above, the petitions are allowed. fir no.286/2014 under sections 354/354-d/506/509 ipc, police station maurya enclave and fir no.893/2014 under sections 498a/4ipc, police station maurya enclave and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed. order dasti under the signatures of the court master.9. september06 2018/st sanjeev sachdeva, j crl.m.c. 4510/2018 & crl.m.c. 4511/2018 page 3 of 3
Judgment:

Judgment delivered on:

06. 09.2018 $~78 & 79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + + CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 VISHAL GUPTA STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 RAM VILAS GUPTA & ORS STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS

........ Petitioner

........ Petitioner

s versus versus Mr. Keshav Verma, Advocate. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

s : For the... RESPONDENTS

: CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for the State. SI Devi Lal, PS Maurya Enclave. JUDGMENT0609.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 31480/2018 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 Crl. M.A. 31483/2018 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 4510/2018 seeks quashing of FIR1 CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 Page 1 of 3 No.286/2014 under Sections 354/354-D/506/509 IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. 4511/2018 seek quashing of FIR No.893/2014 under Sections 498A/4
IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave, based on a settlement 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ms. Jyoti Singhal, sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant though named in the FIR but was not chargesheeted. He further submits that she has also signed the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties.

3. The subject FIR emanates out of discord between the daughter- in-law and the family of the husband. There is no dispute between the husband and wife.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes and Memorandum of Understanding-cum- Compromise Deed-cum-Family Settlement Deed dated 29.05.2018 has been executed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the settlement is a holistic settlement between the entire family and that all disputes between the parties have been fully and finally settled and now there is no dispute pending between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that civil proceedings, which were initiated between the parties, have already been settled in terms of the settlement and appropriate decree has been CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 Page 2 of 3 passed.

6. Respondent No.2 is present in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled her disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to prosecute the criminal complaints any further and has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIRs.

7. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No.2 does not wish to press her complaints, 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. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

8. In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. FIR No.286/2014 under Sections 354/354-D/506/509 IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave and FIR No.893/2014 under Sections 498A/4
IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

9. SEPTEMBER06 2018/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CRL.M.C. 4510/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4511/2018 Page 3 of 3