Delhi High Court
Pankaj Surana & Ors vs The State Of N.C.T Of Delhi & Anr on 5 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 05, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3834/2019 & CRL.M.A. 32783/2019
PANKAJ SURANA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.K. Sharma & Mr. Naresh
Talwar, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Yogesh Sharma.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 237/2019, under Sections 420/406/506 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 30th July, 2019 reached
between the parties and affidavit of 31st July, 2019 of respondent No. 2.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is the
complainant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI
Yogesh Sharma, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No. 2, present in the Court submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, he has received
an amount of ₹5,00,000/- by way of four demand drafts bearing Nos.
788709, 788706, & 78708 dated 01st August, 2019 drawn on State Bank
of India, Branch Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi and demand draft bearing
No. 038972 dated 2nd August, 2019 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Branch
Alipur Delhi from petitioners. Respondent No. 2 affirms the contents of
his affidavit of 31st July, 2019 and submits that there is no forgery angle
and the dispute, which led to registration of the FIR in question has been
amicably resolved between the parties and now, no grievance against
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."
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there is no
forgery angle and the dispute which led to registration of the FIR in
question, now amicably resolved between the parties, therefore,
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed subject to costs of
₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National
Relief Fund within two 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. 237/2019, under Sections
420/406/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 05, 2019
p'ma
