Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Kamaldeep Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 6227 of 2022 and Crl.M.C. 5251 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Settlement - Quashing of FIR - IPC 323/354/354(A)/354(B)/506/509/452/34, IPC 354/354(A)/354(B)/323/341/34 - The court discussed the settlement reached by the parties and the principles guiding the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings. The court directed the parties to plant trees as a constructive measure and quashed the FIRs.
Fact of the Case:
The parties filed petitions seeking quashing of two FIRs related to a family dispute. They had reached a comprehensive settlement, and all other litigations had been put to rest. The complainant/victim confirmed entering into the settlement voluntarily. The court considered the private nature of the dispute and the parties' settlement, leading to a decision in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement was voluntary and in the interest of justice, and the parties did not wish to pursue the complaints due to the settlement. It also considered the unnecessary burden on the investigation agency and courts caused by the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the settlement between the parties justified the quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, to guide the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. It considered the private nature of the dispute, the voluntary settlement, and the ends of justice in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the parties to plant trees as a constructive measure and quashed the FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The case was disposed of, and compliance was scheduled for a later date.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A's 19944-45/2023
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 17684/2023 in CRL.M.C. 6227/2022
This is an application for early hearing.
There is no ground for early hearing.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 6227/2022&CRL.M.C. 5251/2023
1. The present petitions have been filed seeking quashing of case FIR No. 390/2020 under Sections 323/354/354(A)/354(B)/506/509/452/34 IPC and FIR No. 562/2020 under Sections 354/354(A)/354(B)/323/341/34 IPC, both registered at PS Dwarka South.
2. Both the parties' state that it was a family dispute and both the parties are closely related to each other.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submits that now the parties have reached on a comprehensive settlement vide settlement dated 28.01.2021 and it has been placed on record.
4. Both the parties have settled the matter on the following terms and conditions:
"5. It is agreed and declared by all the parties that the properties of various types described in Schedule-I hereunder are the only properties belonging to constituting the joint family properties of the parties of first to seven part (Manjeet Kaur, Gurpreet Kaur, Parminder Kaur, Jasbir Singh, Avinash Kaur Rathor, Harpreet Kaur Kukreja and Kamal Deep Singh) and there are no other properties of any kind whatsoever and if any property is hereafter found to be standing in the name or names of anyone or more of the parties hereto in the Government or any other official record the same shall be deemed to belong to him or her or them alone and absolutely and the others will not make any claim thereto.
6. And in consideration of the premises and the allotment of the properties to the respective parties hereto in full satisfaction of their respective rights, title and interest claim of demand whatsoever in the said properties more fully described in the MoU hereunder written and allotted by way of settlement as here before mentioned each of the parties hereto do the hereby confirm having released, relinquished and, given up and surrendered all their respective rights, privileges, titles and claim and demands in the properties allotted to the other parties hereto as aforesaid.
7. It is agreed and declared that disputes regarding previous disposal of the property no.6 of Schedule-1 is condoned in favour of party or the seventh part (Kamal Deep Singh) and other property settlements arc made in pursuance of the same.
8. It is further agreed and declared that property no. 1 of Schedule-I has been allotted and equally distributed amongst parties of sixth (Harpreet Kaur Kukreja) and seventh part (Kamal Deep Singh). Each one of them is treated as joint owner and `possession holder of 50 sq. yards of the said property.
9. It is further agreed and declared that property no.2 of Schedule-I has been allotted and equally distributed amongst parties of fifth (Avinash Kaur Rathor) and sixth part (Harpreet Kaur Kukreja) has already sold her share in above mentioned property bearing Plots No. 28A and 29B RZ, D-3/A, Mahavir Vihar, Sector-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 to Party of fifth part (Avinash Kaur Rathor) and consideration amount for the same has already been paid to the Party of sixth part.
10. It is further agreed and declared that property no.3 and 4 of Schedule-I have been allotted and distributed amongst parties of first (Manjeet Kaur), fifth (Avinash Kaur Rathor) and seventh part (Kamal Deep Singh) in the following manner. Party of first part (Manjeet Kaur) will be allotted 25 sq. yards and she will be treated as joint owner and possession holder of 25 sq. yards of the said property. Whereas, parties of fifth (Avinash Kaur Rathor) and seventh party (Kamal Deep Singh) will be treated as joint owner and possession holder of 50 sq. yards of the said property. However, party of eighth part (Varun Rathor) would purchase 50 sq. yard from party of seventh part (Kamal Deep Singh) after paying consideration amount of Rs.43,00,0
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary settlement between the parties, guided by th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings if the parties have amicably settled the dis....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on an alleged settlement, with the aim of maintaini....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
