Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 5211/2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 12, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 12, 2019
CRL.M.C. 5211/2017 & CRL.M.A. 20495/2017
FAHIMUDDIN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Diwedi and Mr. Milan, Advocates
FAHIMUDDIN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishal Diwedi and Mr. Milan, Advocates
VERSUS
CHAMAN & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Santosh
Respondent No. 2 in person
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Santosh
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.1031/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 7th November, 2017 of respondent No. 2 reached 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 Santosh 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 7th November, 2017 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received the balanced settled amount of ₹1,10,000 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.
2019:DHC:1509
Quashing of FIR No.1031/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 7th November, 2017 of respondent No. 2 reached 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 Santosh 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 7th November, 2017 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today she has received the balanced settled amount of ₹1,10,000 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.
2019:DHC:1509
CRL.M.C. 5211/2017
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;”
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.1031/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and the application is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 12, 2019 v 2019:DHC:1509
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;”
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.1031/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and the application is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 12, 2019 v 2019:DHC:1509
JUDGMENT