Puneet Uppadhyay & Anr vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) & Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 1925 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Date of Order: April 08, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 1841/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7362/2019

       PUNEET UPPADHYAY & ANR                               .....Petitioners

                          Through:       Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate.

                          Versus

       STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR                          .....Respondents
                          Through:       Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
                                         Public Prosecutor for State with
                                         ASI Praveen Kumar.
                                         Respondent No. 2 in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 839/2014, under Sections 509/354A/506/323/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 25th February, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- 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 ASI Praveen Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and submits that now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality between the parties, 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 FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.

Accordingly, FIR No. 839/2014, under Sections 509/354-

A/506/323/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dabri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 08, 2019 p'ma