Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 3749/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 01, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 01, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3749/2019 & CRL.M.A. 32523/2019
SHUBHANG PARASHAR & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Advocate.
SHUBHANG PARASHAR & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sumit.
Mr. J.L. Bahl, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sumit.
Mr. J.L. Bahl, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 571/2015, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, & Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of
12th November, 2018 reached between the parties and affidavit of 24th July, 2019 of respondent No. 2.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Sumit on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
2019:DHC:3778 between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement of 12th November, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of ₹2,50,000/- by way of
Demand Draft bearing No. 074463 of 5th July, 2019 drawn on HDFC
Bank, branch Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 24th July, 2019 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.
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 complaint, 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;
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.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of
₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National
Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No. 571/2015, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, & Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 571/2015, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, & Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of
12th November, 2018 reached between the parties and affidavit of 24th July, 2019 of respondent No. 2.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Sumit on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
2019:DHC:3778 between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement of 12th November, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of ₹2,50,000/- by way of
Demand Draft bearing No. 074463 of 5th July, 2019 drawn on HDFC
Bank, branch Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 24th July, 2019 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.
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 complaint, 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;
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.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of
₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National
Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No. 571/2015, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, & Sections 4 & 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT