Jaspreet Singh Sethi vs State & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 2014 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of Order: April 12, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 2004/2019
       JASPREET SINGH SETHI                            ..... Petitioner
                     Through:         Mr. H.R.Jha, Advocate.

                         Versus

       STATE & ANR.                                   .....Respondents
                         Through:     Mr. M.S.Oberoi. Singh, 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. 561/2018, under Sections 323/506/354/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, 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, submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now

stands cleared amongst the parties. She has handed over her affidavit of 12th April, 2019 in support of this petition and submits that now, no grievance against petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are related to each other, 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 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. 561/2018, under Sections 323/506/354/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 12, 2019 r