Puneet Uppadhyay & Ors vs State (Gnct Delhi) & Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 1926 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             Date of Order: April 08, 2019
+     CRL.M.C. 1850/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7384/2019

      PUNEET UPPADHYAY & ORS                              .....Petitioners

                          Through:     Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate.

                          Versus

      STATE (GNCT 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. 340/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/377/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the basis of Settlement of 8th February, 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 ASI Praveen Kumar 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 8th February, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received an amount of ₹1,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 317753 dated 10th March, 2019 drawn on Indusland Bank, Branch Krishna Nagar, Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 3rd October, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 25th February, 2019 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. 340/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/377/34 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.

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