Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 2440/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 06, 2019
Date of Order: May 06, 2019
CRL.M.C. 2440/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9659/2019
MOHD. RAFIQ & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Sheoran, Advocate.
MOHD. RAFIQ & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Sheoran, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Virendra Kumar.
Mr. Harendra Kumar, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Virendra Kumar.
Mr. Harendra Kumar, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 411/2011 under Sections 324/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 24th April, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No. 2 present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI Virendra Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
2019:DHC:2489 Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of his affidavit of 24th April, 2019 and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, 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.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 411/2011 under Sections 324/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2019 p’ma
Quashing of FIR No. 411/2011 under Sections 324/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 24th April, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No. 2 present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI Virendra Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
2019:DHC:2489 Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of his affidavit of 24th April, 2019 and submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, 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.”
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 411/2011 under Sections 324/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT