Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 1308/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 11, 2019
Date of Order: March 11, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1308/2019 & Crl.M.A. 5188/2019
AMIT KHATTAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Malhotra, Advocate
AMIT KHATTAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Malhotra, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mohd. Kafeel Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Mohd. Kafeel Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 214/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of joint statement of parties recorded before the trial court on 19th January, 2019.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Mohd. Kafeel 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 joint
2019:DHC:1475 statement of parties recorded before the trial court. Respondent No.2 submits that in terms thereof, she has today received a sum of ₹2,00,000/- by way of demand draft No.057204, dated 7th March, 2019, drawn on Union Bank, Dwarka Branch, New Delhi. She submits that another sum of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the Registrar General of this
Court in pursuance to order of 28th February, 2018 in Bail Appln.
2021/2016, Amit Khattar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) is to be released to her.
Counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that petitioner has no objection if the amount of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th February, 2019 filed in support of this petition 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.
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, subject to costs of `10,000/- deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks from today and upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer and release of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court in pursuance to order of 28th February, 2018 in Bail Appln.
2021/2016, Amit Khattar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) along with interest accrued thereupon, FIR No. 214/2016, under Sections 498-
A/406/34 IPC, registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2019 r
Quashing of FIR No. 214/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of joint statement of parties recorded before the trial court on 19th January, 2019.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent–
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Mohd. Kafeel 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 joint
2019:DHC:1475 statement of parties recorded before the trial court. Respondent No.2 submits that in terms thereof, she has today received a sum of ₹2,00,000/- by way of demand draft No.057204, dated 7th March, 2019, drawn on Union Bank, Dwarka Branch, New Delhi. She submits that another sum of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the Registrar General of this
Court in pursuance to order of 28th February, 2018 in Bail Appln.
2021/2016, Amit Khattar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) is to be released to her.
Counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that petitioner has no objection if the amount of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th February, 2019 filed in support of this petition 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.
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, subject to costs of `10,000/- deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks from today and upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer and release of ₹2,00,000/- deposited by petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court in pursuance to order of 28th February, 2018 in Bail Appln.
2021/2016, Amit Khattar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) along with interest accrued thereupon, FIR No. 214/2016, under Sections 498-
A/406/34 IPC, registered at police station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2019 r
JUDGMENT