Delhi High Court
Sh. Satyender Tomar & Anr vs State & Anr on 5 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 05, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1819/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7288/2019
SH. SATYENDER TOMAR & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vashisth, Ms. Rita
Rana & Mr. Vishwas Ahuja,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sumit Kumar.
+ CRL.M.C. 1836/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7334/2019
SH. PAWAN KUMAR SAINI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vashisth, Ms. Rita
Rana & Mr. Vishwas Ahuja,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Sumit.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions quashing of cross FIR Nos.
755/2015 under Sections 323/341/354(B)/451/506/509/34 of IPC and FIR
No. 754/2015 under Sections 341/354(B)/451/509/34 of IPC both
registered at police station Jyoti 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. 755/2015 &
754/2015 are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so,
by SI Sumit Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Complainants/parties of cross FIR Nos. 755/2015 & 754/2015
affirm the contents of their affidavits of 29th March, 2019 and 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 between parties survives and so, to restore cordiality between
the parties, who are neighbours, 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. 755/2015 under Sections
323/341/354(B)/451/506/509/34 of IPC and FIR No. 754/2015 under
Sections 341/354(B)/451/509/34 of IPC registered at police station Jyoti
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 05, 2019
p'ma
