Delhi High Court
Ankit Gandhi vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 23 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 23, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2114/2019
ANKIT GANDHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Vishal Tiwari
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 277/2015, under Sections 354A/451/509 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi is sought on the
basis of affidavit of 9th 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 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 SI Vishal Tiwari, 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 now, no grievance against
petitioner 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 ₹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. 277/2015, under Sections 354A/451/509
of IPC, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2019
r
