Tarun Gulati & Ors Vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court 9 Jan 2019 Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 58 Of 2019, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 284 Of 2019 (2019) 01 DEL CK 0281
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 58 Of 2019, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 284 Of 2019

Hon'ble Bench

Sunil Gaur, J

Advocates

Rohit K. Nagpal, Izhar Ahmed, Vinay Kumar

Final Decision

Disposed Off

Acts Referred
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34, 323, 406, 498A, 506

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. Quashing of FIR No.139/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/506/323/34 of IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis

of Memorandum of Understanding of 3rd March, 2017 reached between the parties.

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2, accept

notice. Respondent No.2 present in the Court has been duly identified by her counsel as the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide Memorandum of

Understanding of 3rd March, 2017 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 17th November, 2018

filed in support of 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.

5. In ‘Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab’ (2012) 10 SCC 30,3 Supreme 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 guiding

factor.â€​

6. 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.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund

within four weeks from today and upon placing on record the receipt of deposit of cost with two weeks thereafter, FIR No.139/2013, under Sections

498-A/406/506/323/34 of IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua

petitioners.

8. This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More