Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 3258/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: July 10, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: July 10, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3258/2019 & CRL.M.As. 13412-13413/2019
SANJAY KUMAR & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate (DHCLSC).
SANJAY KUMAR & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate (DHCLSC).
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Anuj.
Mr. Gaurav Kaushik, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Anuj.
Mr. Gaurav Kaushik, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 359/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 18th September, 2018 (Annexure P-14) reached between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-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 Anuj on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:3300 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, she has received an amount ₹55,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 283009 dated
9th July, 2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Shakti Nagar, Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 28th June, 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.
Accordingly, FIR No. 359/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 359/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 18th September, 2018 (Annexure P-14) reached between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-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 Anuj on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:3300 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, she has received an amount ₹55,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 283009 dated
9th July, 2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Shakti Nagar, Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 28th June, 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.
Accordingly, FIR No. 359/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT