Delhi High Court
Dr. Hem Chandra Bhatt & Ors 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. 1834/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7323/2019
DR. HEM CHANDRA BHATT & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Indrapal Singh.
Mr. Rakesh Malviya, Advocate
with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 430/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Settlement Deed of 22nd January, 2019.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State submits that Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
have been added and 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 Indrapal Singh 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
Deed and submits that she will withdraw the application under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. provided a sum of ₹5,00,000/- in terms of the
Settlement Deed of 22nd January, 2019 is paid to her. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that needful shall be done.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 26th
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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of
costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No. 430/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police
Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed qua petitioners, with the rider that respondent No. 2
shall withdraw the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. within a
week from today, provided that she is compensated by petitioners to the
tune of ₹5,00,000/-.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 05, 2019
p'ma
