Delhi High Court
Kadam Singh vs State & Anr. on 1 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 01, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3748/2019 & CRL.M.A. 32522/2019
KADAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nadeem Abbasi, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Rampal.
Mr. Tarun Goomber, Mr. Gaurav
Goswam & Ms. Somya, Advocates
with Mr. Montu Bargujar,
Authorized Representative of
respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 192/2014, under Sections
408/406/420/120B/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Greater
Kailash, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding
of 29th May, 2019 reached between the parties 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 Mr. Montu Bargujar, Authorized Representative of
respondent No. 2 present in Court, and he has been identified to be so, by
SI Rampal, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Authorized Representative of respondent No. 2 submits that the
misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved vide
aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding of 29th May, 2019. He affirms
the contents of his affidavit of 29th July, 2019 and 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, 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."
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 amongst the parties.
Consequentially, 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. 192/2014, under Sections
408/406/420/120B/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Greater
Kailash, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2019
p'ma
