Delhi High Court
Rohit Sharma @ Rohit & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) & Anr. on 16 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 16, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2051/2019 & Crl.M.A. 8144/2019
ROHIT SHARMA @ ROHIT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dhananjay Kapoor Singh,
Advocate.
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Praveen Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 176/2018, under Sections
354/354B/379/356/452/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karawal
Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mutual Agreement (Annexure-B) of
19th April, 2018 and affidavit of 27th December, 2018 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 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 between the parties and submits that now, no grievance
against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality between the
parties, who are neighbours, 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 ₹30,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within four weeks 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. 176/2018, under Sections
354/354B/379/356/452/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karawal
Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2019
r
