Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 2785/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 23, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 23, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2785/2019
NITIN GUPTA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.V.Hari Pillai and Mr.Manish Kumar Saryal, Advocates.
NITIN GUPTA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.V.Hari Pillai and Mr.Manish Kumar Saryal, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sanjay Kumar.
Mr. Akshay Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sanjay Kumar.
Mr. Akshay Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.11202/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.22/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 20th March, 2019 (Annexure P-2).
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 Sanjay Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:2820 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and she affirms the contents of her affidavit of 22nd May, 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹40,000/- 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.22/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2019 v
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.22/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 20th March, 2019 (Annexure P-2).
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 Sanjay Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:2820 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and she affirms the contents of her affidavit of 22nd May, 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹40,000/- 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.22/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2019 v
JUDGMENT