Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 1539/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 20, 2019
Date of Order: March 20, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1539/2019 & Crl.M.A. 6143-44/2019
ALIM SAIFI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aslam Malik, Advocate.
ALIM SAIFI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aslam Malik, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Vikrant.
Mr. Mohd. S.Malik, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person.
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Vikrant.
Mr. Mohd. S.Malik, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 251/2017, under Section 308/34 IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 8th 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
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 Vikrant, on the basis of identity proof produced
2019:DHC:1693 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. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 8th March, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now, no grievance against petitioners survives and to restore cordiality amongst parties, who are related to each other, 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No. 251/2017, under Section 308/34 IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2019 r
Quashing of FIR No. 251/2017, under Section 308/34 IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 8th 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
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 Vikrant, on the basis of identity proof produced
2019:DHC:1693 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. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 8th March, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now, no grievance against petitioners survives and to restore cordiality amongst parties, who are related to each other, 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No. 251/2017, under Section 308/34 IPC, registered at police station Geeta Colony, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2019 r
JUDGMENT