Delhi High Court
Sukhvinder Singh & Ors vs The State Of Delhi & Anr on 10 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 10, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1927/2019
SUKHVINDER SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Singh Bagga,
Advocate
Versus
THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor with ASI
Surinder Dutt
Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.7645/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1927/2019
Quashing of FIR No.408/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Hari Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis
of 'Memorandum of Understanding' of 23rd April, 2014.
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 Surinder Dutt 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 as today, she has received
an amount ₹2,50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing no. 066699 dated
5th April, 2019 drawn on State Bank of India, Y.S.Model School Branch,
Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 16th
February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute
survives, provided the share of property as referred in Clause 6 of the
'Memorandum of Understanding' is demarcated within three months.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that needful will be done within
the stipulated time.
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 proceedings, 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.408/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Hari Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of, with a rider that if
petitioner-husband defaults in complying with aforesaid 'Memorandum
of Understanding', then the respondent-complainant shall be at liberty to
get this order revoked.
DASTI.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2019
v
