Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 3937/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 09, 2019
Date of Order: August 09, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3937/2019 & CRL.M.As. 33224-33225/2019
HARPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Robin Singh Sirohi & Mr. Parameshwar Choudhary, Advocates.
HARPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Robin Singh Sirohi & Mr. Parameshwar Choudhary, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Rajender Singh.
Mr. Rajendra Singh & Ms. Nitisha Goyal, Advocates with Respondent
No. 2 in person.
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Rajender Singh.
Mr. Rajendra Singh & Ms. Nitisha Goyal, Advocates with Respondent
No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 607/2017, under Sections 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 6th August, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by
ASI Rajender Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
2019:DHC:3950 Respondent No. 2, present in the Court submits that the misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved. He affirms the contents of his affidavit of 6th August, 2019 and submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal proceedings, which are as under:-
“16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Consequentially, FIR No. 607/2017, under Sections 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 09, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 607/2017, under Sections 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 6th August, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by
ASI Rajender Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
2019:DHC:3950 Respondent No. 2, present in the Court submits that the misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved. He affirms the contents of his affidavit of 6th August, 2019 and submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal proceedings, which are as under:-
“16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Consequentially, FIR No. 607/2017, under Sections 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 09, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT