P.S. Teji JUDGMENT
P.S. Teji, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Gaurav Malik and Sh. Ankur Kohli for quashing of FIR No. 744/2013 dated 27.11.2013, under Section 324/325/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of the compromise deed executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, namely, Dr. Yogesh Kumar on 18.02.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No. 2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that on 26.11.2013, at around 9.15 pm, the complainant's neighbour requested him to park their scooter inside the premises. The complainant upon having done so was further directed by his neighbour to keep the keys in the lift and send them up to the 2nd floor of the residential building. The complainant instead said that he would rather keep the keys on the scooter and asked his neighbour to collect the keys later to which the neighbour retorted by calling the complainant an idiot. The complainant upon protesting to the same was physically attacked by the neighbour's husband and his friends.
Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged following which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. Later, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of friends and family members of the parties. It is agreed that the petitioners shall approach this Court for the quashing of the FIR in question and that respondent No. 2 shall cooperate for the same.
Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 18.02.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No. 2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:--
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant ob........