Delhi High Court
Mr. Imran Khan & Ors vs State & Ors. on 2 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 02, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1716/2019 & CRL.M.A. 6923/2019
MR. IMRAN KHAN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Saroj Dutta Bakshi, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Praveen Kumar.
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 1718/2019 & CRL.M.A. 6925/2019
BABBU KHAN & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Obeori, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Praveen Kumar.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions quashing of cross FIR Nos.
941/2014 under Sections 354/323/451/427/34 of IPC and FIR No.
942/2014 under Sections 354/323/34 of IPC registered at police station
Krishna Nagar, Delhi are sought on the ground that the misunderstanding
which led to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared between the
parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that complainant-parties of cross FIR Nos. 941/2014 &
942/2014 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so
by ASI Praveen Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Complainants/parties of cross FIR Nos. 941/2014 & 942/2014
submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the cross
FIRs in question, now stands cleared between the parties and that now, no
grievance against each other survives and so, to restore cordiality
between the parties, who are landlord and tenant, 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;"
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance
of proceedings arising out of the cross FIRs in question would be an
exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of
these cross FIRs, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Accordingly, cross FIR No. 941/2014 under Sections
354/323/451/427/34 of IPC and FIR No. 942/2014 under Sections
354/323/34 of IPC, both registered at police station Krishna Nagar, Delhi
and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua
petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 02, 2019
p'ma
