Anil & Ors vs State & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 1898 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Date of Order: April 05, 2019
+      CRL.M.C. 1816/2019 & Crl.M.A.7277/2019

       ANIL & ORS                                         .....Petitioners

                          Through:     Ms. Naina Bajaj, Advocate.

                          Versus

       STATE & ANR.                                      .....Respondents

                          Through:     Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for State with SI
                                       Deepak Panwar.
                                       Mr. M.R. Singh Sisodia & Mr.
                                       Akrar M. Khan, Advocates with
                                       Respondent No. 2 in person.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

(ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 367/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 27th September, 2018 reached between the parties.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-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 Deepak Panwar 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 Settlement of 27th September, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received an amount of ₹1,50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 09764 dated 5th April, 2019 drawn on Central Bank of India, Gulmohar Park Branch, Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 23rd February, 2019. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 18th March, 2019 supporting 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, FIR No. 367/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 05, 2019 p'ma