Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 3010/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 30, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 30, 2019
CRL.M.C. 3010/2019
ANWAR @ SONO & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu, Advocate.
ANWAR @ SONO & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Raju Yadav.
Ms. Roshini Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Raju Yadav.
Ms. Roshini Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.12116/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.184/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 13th February, 2019.
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 Raju Yadav on the basis of identity proof
2019:DHC:2983 produced by her.
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 of ₹1,25,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 079922 dated 20th March, 2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Delhi from petitioners.
She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th March, 2019 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 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.”
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.184/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2019 v
Crl.M.A.12116/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.184/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 13th February, 2019.
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 Raju Yadav on the basis of identity proof
2019:DHC:2983 produced by her.
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 of ₹1,25,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 079922 dated 20th March, 2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Delhi from petitioners.
She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th March, 2019 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 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.”
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.184/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2019 v
JUDGMENT