Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 2245/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: April 29, 2019
Date of Order: April 29, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2245/2019
MR. PARDEEP YADAV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Pawar, Advocate.
MR. PARDEEP YADAV & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Pawar, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Ram Niwas.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Ram Niwas.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 8967/2019 (delay in re-filing)
There is delay of 7 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
There is delay of 7 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2245/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 186/2018, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 19th March, 2019 of respondent No. 2.
2019:DHC:2343 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 ASI Ram Niwas 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 vide aforesaid affidavit of
19th March, 2019 and submits that she is happily living with petitioner- husband. Respondent No. 2 submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and to restore cordiality amongst the parties, 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. 186/2018, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 186/2018, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 19th March, 2019 of respondent No. 2.
2019:DHC:2343 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 ASI Ram Niwas 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 vide aforesaid affidavit of
19th March, 2019 and submits that she is happily living with petitioner- husband. Respondent No. 2 submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and to restore cordiality amongst the parties, 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. 186/2018, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Bindapur, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT