Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 1061/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 25, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 25, 2019
CRL.M.C. 1061/2019 & Crl.M.A. 4230/2019
WASEEM @ TANNI @ TARIK WASEEM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shamsher Ali, Advocate
WASEEM @ TANNI @ TARIK WASEEM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shamsher Ali, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with ASI Sunder Lal Respondent No.2 in person
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with ASI Sunder Lal Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.341/2016, under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 20th February, 2019 of respondent No.2.
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 ASI Sunder Lal on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, affirms the contents of her
Affidavit of 20th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that misunderstanding between the parties now stands cleared and so, the
2019:DHC:1293
Quashing of FIR No.341/2016, under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 20th February, 2019 of respondent No.2.
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 ASI Sunder Lal on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, affirms the contents of her
Affidavit of 20th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that misunderstanding between the parties now stands cleared and so, the
2019:DHC:1293
CRL.M.C. 1061/2019 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 misunderstanding between the parties has been now cleared, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, FIR No.341/2016, under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and application stands disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRAURY 25, 2019 r 2019:DHC:1293
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 misunderstanding between the parties has been now cleared, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, FIR No.341/2016, under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and application stands disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRAURY 25, 2019 r 2019:DHC:1293
JUDGMENT