Delhi High Court
Pankaj Sharma & Ors vs The State (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. 2283/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9053/2019
PANKAJ SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Suma Kaintura, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sanjay Kumar
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.774/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Memorandum Of Understanding of 19th February, 2018 reached
between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-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 Sanjay Kumar on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid
Memorandum Of Understanding of 19th February, 2018. Respondent
No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 11th March, 2019 and submits
that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the 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."
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, FIR No.774/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2019
v
