Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 2720/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 21, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 21, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2720/2019
PRAVEEN BAGGA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Mr. Nand Ram & Mr. V.G.Achray, Advocates.
PRAVEEN BAGGA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Mr. Nand Ram & Mr. V.G.Achray, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr.M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with ASI Jatan Swaroop.
Respondent No.2 in person.
Through: Dr.M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with ASI Jatan Swaroop.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. ---- (Registry to assign number)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No. 473/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi is sought on ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-complainant are happily living together since January, 2018.
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
2019:DHC:2771 identified to be so, by ASI Jatan Swaroop on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that she is living happily with petitioner No.1-husband since January, 2018 and 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. 473/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
However, it is made clear that if the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner-husband again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand in her way to have recourse to law.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2019 r
Crl.M.A. ---- (Registry to assign number)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No. 473/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi is sought on ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-complainant are happily living together since January, 2018.
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
2019:DHC:2771 identified to be so, by ASI Jatan Swaroop on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that she is living happily with petitioner No.1-husband since January, 2018 and 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. 473/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
However, it is made clear that if the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner-husband again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand in her way to have recourse to law.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2019 r
JUDGMENT