Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 1256/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 07, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: March 07, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1256/2019
NAVEEN AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate
NAVEEN AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person
Through: Dr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate with respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.4943/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of
IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and trial court order of 29th May, 2017 vide which petitioners have been summoned under Sections 451/323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and on the ground that misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.
Dr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
2019:DHC:1427 respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
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 he has been identified to be so, by his counsel on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and he affirms the contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and his affidavit of 25th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, 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;”
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR 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, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹20,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and aforesaid summoning order of 29th May, 2017 shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 07, 2019 v
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Quashing of FIR No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of
IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and trial court order of 29th May, 2017 vide which petitioners have been summoned under Sections 451/323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and on the ground that misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.
Dr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
2019:DHC:1427 respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
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 he has been identified to be so, by his counsel on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and he affirms the contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and his affidavit of 25th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, 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;”
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR 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, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹20,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a week from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and aforesaid summoning order of 29th May, 2017 shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 07, 2019 v
JUDGMENT