Delhi High Court
Ravinder Sharma @ John vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 15 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 15, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2018/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7989/2019
RAVINDER SHARMA @ JOHN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with ASI Raham Singh
Mr. Ashish Arya, Advocate with
respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 39/2018, under Sections 324/341 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavit of 11th April, 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 offence under Section 326 of IPC has been added and
attention of this court has been drawn to the MLC of respondent
No.2/Injured. Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, is the
complainant/first-informant of FIR in question and he has been identified
to be so, by ASI Raham Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by
him.
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. He affirms the contents of his
aforesaid affidavit of 11th April, 2019 supporting this petition and submits
that now, no grievance against petitioner survives and so, to restore
cordiality between the parties, who are friends, 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."
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case and the MLC
of respondent No. 2/Injured, I find that the offence made out against
petitioner does not come within the ambit of Section 326 of IPC. 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 FIR No. 39/2018, under Sections 324/341 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 15, 2019
v
