Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 3446/2019 & 3462/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: July 19, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: July 19, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3446/2019 & CRL.M.A. 31388/2019
JATINDER KHURANA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikram Dua & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
JATINDER KHURANA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikram Dua & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Gaurav Mr. Karan Jain, Advocate with Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Gaurav Mr. Karan Jain, Advocate with Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in person.
CRL.M.C. 3462/2019 & CRL.M.A. 31440/2019
SHRI ROSHAN LAL AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karan Jain, Advocate.
SHRI ROSHAN LAL AGGARWAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karan Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
W/SI Pooja.
Mr. Vikram Dua & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
W/SI Pooja.
Mr. Vikram Dua & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 2019:DHC:3485 O R D E R
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIR Nos.
178/2018 under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of IPC and FIR
No.181/2018 under Sections 323/354/354-B/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that complainants of cross FIR Nos. 178/2018 & 181/2018 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so, by SI
Gaurav & W/SI Pooja on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Complainants of cross FIR Nos. 178/2018 & 181/2018 affirm the contents of their affidavits filed in support of these petitions and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the cross FIRs in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and that now, no grievance between the parties 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 cross FIRs in question, would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of these cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Consequentially, both the petitions are allowed, subject to costs of
₹50,000/- per petition to be deposited by petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C.
3446/2019 and by petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 3462/2019 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, cross FIR Nos.
178/2018 under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of IPC and FIR
No.181/2018 under Sections 323/354/354-B/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2019 p’ma
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIR Nos.
178/2018 under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of IPC and FIR
No.181/2018 under Sections 323/354/354-B/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that complainants of cross FIR Nos. 178/2018 & 181/2018 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so, by SI
Gaurav & W/SI Pooja on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Complainants of cross FIR Nos. 178/2018 & 181/2018 affirm the contents of their affidavits filed in support of these petitions and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the cross FIRs in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and that now, no grievance between the parties 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 cross FIRs in question, would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of these cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Consequentially, both the petitions are allowed, subject to costs of
₹50,000/- per petition to be deposited by petitioner No. 2 in CRL.M.C.
3446/2019 and by petitioner No. 1 in CRL.M.C. 3462/2019 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, cross FIR Nos.
178/2018 under Sections 308/323/341/506/34 of IPC and FIR
No.181/2018 under Sections 323/354/354-B/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT