Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 2389/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 03, 2019
Date of Order: May 03, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2389/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9495/2019
DHARA SINGH @ NAKUL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Brij Bhushan Tyagi, Mr. Bhavtosh Sharma & Mr.Rishi
Tyagi, Advocates.
DHARA SINGH @ NAKUL & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Brij Bhushan Tyagi, Mr. Bhavtosh Sharma & Mr.Rishi
Tyagi, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Manoj
Kumar.
Mr. Pankaj Mohan, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Manoj
Kumar.
Mr. Pankaj Mohan, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 675/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 18th August, 2018 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 Manoj Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:2464 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement of 18th August, 2018. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 12th 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, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of ₹10,000/- 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. 675/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 675/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 18th August, 2018 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 Manoj Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:2464 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement of 18th August, 2018. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 12th 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, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of ₹10,000/- 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. 675/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT