Full Text
Translation output
CRL. M.C. 1051/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 25, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 25, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1051/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4210/2019
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Jha, Advocate
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Jha, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Virender Kumar Mr. Yatender Khatri, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Virender Kumar Mr. Yatender Khatri, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 336/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated settlement of 28th February, 2018 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 Virender Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
2019:DHC:1294 between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid mediated settlement of 28th February, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of ₹2,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 269544 of 3rd December, 2018.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid mediated settlement of
28th February, 2018 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 the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 336/2016, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station K.N.Katju
Marg, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2019 r
Quashing of FIR No. 336/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated settlement of 28th February, 2018 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 Virender Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
2019:DHC:1294 between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid mediated settlement of 28th February, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of ₹2,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 269544 of 3rd December, 2018.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid mediated settlement of
28th February, 2018 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 the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 336/2016, under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station K.N.Katju
Marg, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2019 r
JUDGMENT