Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 1451/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 18, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 18, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1451/2019
SH. GOPAL MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Subhas Kumar Jha and Mr. Sharad Chandra Jha, Advocates.
SH. GOPAL MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Subhas Kumar Jha and Mr. Sharad Chandra Jha, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Rajesh Kumar.
Mr. Mohd. Anas, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Rajesh Kumar.
Mr. Mohd. Anas, Advocate with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 5773 /2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 5774/2019 (delay)
There is delay of 30 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.
Quashing of FIR No. 268/2016, under Sections 498-A/406 of IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 27th May, 2017 reached between the parties.
2019:DHC:1630 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 ASI Rajesh Kumar 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 as today, she has received an amount of ₹75,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.393762 dated
26th February, 2019 drawn on Bank of India, Kirari Suleman Nagar
Branch, Delhi from petitioner. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of
30th January, 2019 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 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks 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. 268/2016, under Sections 498-A/406 of
IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 18, 2019 p’ma
There is delay of 30 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.
Quashing of FIR No. 268/2016, under Sections 498-A/406 of IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 27th May, 2017 reached between the parties.
2019:DHC:1630 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 ASI Rajesh Kumar 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 as today, she has received an amount of ₹75,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.393762 dated
26th February, 2019 drawn on Bank of India, Kirari Suleman Nagar
Branch, Delhi from petitioner. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of
30th January, 2019 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 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks 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. 268/2016, under Sections 498-A/406 of
IPC, registered at police station Moti Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 18, 2019 p’ma
JUDGMENT