SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Ms Manibala – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of N. C. T. & Anr. – Respondents
CRL.M.C. 4862/2023,
Cr.M.C. 4859 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. V.V.R. Rao, Advocate with Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 4859/2023 & CRL.M.C. 4862/2023.
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State and W/SI Deepika, PS K.M. Pur and W/SI Kirandeep Kaur, PS K.M. Pur in CRL.M.C. 4859/2023 & CRL.M.C. 4862/2023.
Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate with Respondent-2 in CRL.M.C. 4859/2023 & for the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 4862/2023.

The main legal point established is that the court may exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings when the chances of conviction are bleak and a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Settlement Agreement - The court quashed the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom based on a settlement agreement between the parties, considering the petty nature of the incident and the likelihood of better relations between the parties.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions sought quashing of FIRs registered under Sections 323/341 IPC and Sections 323/324/506/509/34 IPC at PS K.M. Pur, arising from a dispute between two parties involving allegations of quarrelling, tearing clothes, and physical altercation at a beauty parlour.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement, and considering the petty nature of the incident and the likelihood of better relations between the parties, the court quashed the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

Issues: The issues involved the quashing of FIRs based on a settlement agreement, the nature of the incident, and the likelihood of better relations between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations, the court may exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No. 402/2022 and case FIR No. 403/2022, along with all other proceedings emanating therefrom, based on the settlement agreement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 18586/2023

CRL.M.A. 18595/2023

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 4859/2023

CRL.M.C. 4862/2023

1. The present petitions have been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No. 402/2022 registered under Sections 323/341 IPC at PS K.M. Pur and case FIR No. 403/2022 registered under Sections 323/324/506/509/34 IPC at PS K.M. Pur.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the FIR No. 402/2022 was lodged on the statement of Ms. J alleging therein that the petitioner came to her beauty parlour and on not being satisfied by the work done by the complainant,the petitioner started quarrelling with her. It is further alleged that the Petitioner tore down the complainant's clothes. Thereafter a counter FIR bearing No. 403/2022 was lodged by Ms. M alleging there in that she had gone to the beauty parlour where respondent No.2 did not conduct the job satisfactorily. When the complainant objected to the work of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 gave her a beating. Both the FIRs are of the same incident.

3. Learned counsel for the parties states that however during the pendency of the proceedings the parties have amicably entered into a settlement and MOU dated 10.07.2023 has been recorded wherein the parties have settled all their disputes on the following terms and conditions:

    "1. That both parties shall withdraw their respective complaints lodged in PS K.M Pur, culminated into registration of FIR bearing No. 0403/2022 dated 20.09.2022 under section 323/324/506/509/34 IPC against the Second Party & cross FIR No. 0402/2022 dated 20.09.2022 under section 323/341 IPC against the First Party unconditionally.

    2. That for the purpose of withdrawal/quashing of the said FIRs, if so required, the parties shall approach the Hon'ble High Court or any other competent Court. This agreement shall be deemed to be a Non-Objection, on the part of respective parties against each other for approaching the Hon'ble High Court or any other Court in getting the FIR registered against each other for withdrawing/quashing.

    3. That both the parties shall co-operate with each other in getting the aforesaid cross FIRs withdrawn/ quashed registered against each other. The Parties, for the said purposes, shall sign and deliver to each other, as the need be, all such paper(s), affidavit(s), Petition(s), Undertaking(s), and/or any other documents(s) which will be deemed appropriate and necessary towards the said purpose.

    4. That this agreement shall not be deemed to be acknowledgement of any liability/wrong doing on the part of any of the parties and this agreement is without prejudice to the respective contention(s)/defense(s).

    5. That in case either of the parties fail to perform any of its obligation under this agreement, the other party shall approach to the competent court of law for enformance of this agreement.

    6. The parties to this deed have understood the terms of this deed and have entered into this deed in their sound disposing mind, out of their own free will, volition, consent and without their being any force, pressure, coercion or undue influence of any party from any comer whatsoever."

4. Ms. J and Ms. M are present in the court with their counsels and state that they have settled the matter voluntarily at their own free will without any fear, force or coercion.

5. The perusal of the FIRs shows that the incident was an outcome of a petty issue. Both the parties are young ladies who state that the incident happened at the spur of the moment.

6. IO has duly identified the parties and state that there is no other case against the parties.

7. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court that when the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, and where the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top