Delhi High Court
Karamjeet Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 12 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 12, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1999/2019
KARAMJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shubham Saini, Advocate
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respodent-
State with ASI Praveen Kumar.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 7909/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 7908/2019
There is delay of 229 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay
is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1999/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 814/2016, under Section 354D of IPC,
registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi is sought 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, handed over her affidavit of
12th April, 2019 supporting this petition and it is taken on record.
Respondent No. 2 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 petitioner survives and so,
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 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."
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 between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioner 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. 814/2016, under Section 354D of IPC,
registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 12, 2019
v
