Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 29, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2243/2019 & CRL.M.As. 8961-8962/2019
RAHUL SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI
Kaushik Ghosh.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
with Respondent No. 2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 2287/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9061-9062/2019
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI
Kaushik Ghosh.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
with Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR No. 66/2015
under Sections 354/506/509/34 of IPC and FIR No. 347/2015 under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, both registered at Police Station Shahdara,
Delhi are sought on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to
registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that complainants-party-Pooja of FIR No. 66/2015 & FIR
No. 347/2015 is present in the Court and she have been identified to be
so, by SI Kaushik Ghosh, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Complainant/party-Pooja of FIR No. 66/2015 & FIR No. 347/2015
affirm the contents of her affidavit of 19th February, 2019 and submit that
the misunderstanding, which led to registration of these FIRs in question,
now stands cleared amongst the parties and that now, no grievance
against each other survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the
parties, proceedings arising out of these FIRs 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 these FIRs in question, would be an exercise
in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of these
FIRs, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed, subject to costs of
₹10,000/- each in these two petitions 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. 66/2015
under Sections 354/506/509/34 of IPC and FIR No. 347/2015 under
Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, both registered at Police Station Shahdara,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2019
p'ma
