Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 3314/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: July 12, 2019
Date of Order: July 12, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3314/2019 & Crl.M.A. 30864/2019
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rashid Khan, Advocate
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rashid Khan, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Manoj Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 in person.
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Manoj Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.1520/2015, under Section 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi is sought 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.5 is a minor and she is represented through her mother- respondent No.3. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so by SI Manoj on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
2019:DHC:3336 Respondents No. 2 to 4 present in the Court, affirm the contents of their affidavits of 6th June, 2019 and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are related to each other, 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 between the parties.
Consequentially, FIR No.1520/2015, under Section 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2019 r
Quashing of FIR No.1520/2015, under Section 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi is sought 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.5 is a minor and she is represented through her mother- respondent No.3. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so by SI Manoj on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
2019:DHC:3336 Respondents No. 2 to 4 present in the Court, affirm the contents of their affidavits of 6th June, 2019 and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are related to each other, 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 between the parties.
Consequentially, FIR No.1520/2015, under Section 308/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2019 r
JUDGMENT