Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 1906/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: April 09, 2019
Date of Order: April 09, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1906/2019
SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Pal & Mr. Gulshan Kr.
Pal, Advocates.
SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Pal & Mr. Gulshan Kr.
Pal, Advocates.
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Mahesh Singh.
Mr. Anil Kr. Sharma & Mr. Sandeep Kumar Advocates with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Mahesh Singh.
Mr. Anil Kr. Sharma & Mr. Sandeep Kumar Advocates with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 7563/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 7564/2019 (delay)
There is delay of 62 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.
2019:DHC:2030 Quashing of FIR No. 45/2010, under Sections 354/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 30th March, 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 she has been identified to be so, by SI Mahesh Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and submits that now, no grievance against petitioner survive and so, to restore cordiality between 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 complaint, 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 between the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 45/2010, under Sections 354/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 09, 2019 p’ma
There is delay of 62 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.
2019:DHC:2030 Quashing of FIR No. 45/2010, under Sections 354/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 30th March, 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 she has been identified to be so, by SI Mahesh Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and submits that now, no grievance against petitioner survive and so, to restore cordiality between 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 complaint, 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 between the parties.
Accordingly, FIR No. 45/2010, under Sections 354/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 09, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT