BABITA RAWAT AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 130/2013, under Ss. 65/66C/72 of the Income Tax Act, 2000 registered at police station Palam Village, Delhi is sought in this petition on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 17th May, 2013 (Annexure P -2). Mr. Parveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State accepts notice and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State submits that respondent No. 2, present in the Court, is complainant/first -informant of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so by his counsel as well as by SI Raghuveer on the basis of identity proof produced by him. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 17th May, 2013 (Annexure P -2) and the terms thereof have been fully acted upon and that the misunderstanding with petitioner No. 1, who is his ex wife, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondent No. 2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 17th May, 2013 (Annexure P -2) and of his affidavit supporting 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. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab " : (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: - -

(2.) The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v/s. State of Punjab : 2014 (2) JCC 1360 : (2014) 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under: - -