Delhi High Court
Nikhil Babbar vs State (Nct Delhi) & Anr on 7 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3899/2019
NIKHIL BABBAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.N. Pandey and Mr. Pushkar
Walia, Advocates.
Versus
STATE (NCT DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Manju Singh
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 109/2019 under Sections 354/509/506/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi is sought on the
basis of affidavit of 3rd August, 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 Manju Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by
her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of her
affidavit of 3rd August, 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, to restore cordiality between the parties, who are relatives, 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 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 eight 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. 109/2019 under Sections 354/509/506/34
of IPC, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2019
v
