Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 1740/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: April 03, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: April 03, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1740/2019
SH. ANAND PRAKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: In person
SH. ANAND PRAKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: In person
VERSUS
STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Niraj
Kumar.
Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Niraj
Kumar.
Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.7000/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.49/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of respondent No. 2’s affidavit of 1st October, 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 identified to be so, by SI Niraj Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:1932 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, she has received an amount ₹5,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 038613 dated
31st January, 2019 from petitioner. She affirms the contents of her aforesaid affidavit of 1st October, 2018 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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 and FIR No.49/2014, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 03, 2019 v
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No.49/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of respondent No. 2’s affidavit of 1st October, 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 identified to be so, by SI Niraj Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
2019:DHC:1932 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, she has received an amount ₹5,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 038613 dated
31st January, 2019 from petitioner. She affirms the contents of her aforesaid affidavit of 1st October, 2018 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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 and FIR No.49/2014, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 03, 2019 v
JUDGMENT