Delhi High Court
Tirlochan Singh & Anr vs State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 9 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 09, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3918/2019 & CRL.M.A. 33167/2019
TIRLOCHAN SINGH & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ojasvi Khaneja, Advocate.
Versus
STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
Inspector C.L. Meena.
Mr. C.B. Garg, Mr. Manish
Kumar, Advocates with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 3919/2019 & CRL.M.A. 33168/2019
RATVINDER SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. C.B. Garg, Mr. Manish
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
Inspector C.L. Meena.
Mr. Ojasvi Khaneja, Advocate
with respondent No. 2 in person.
CRL.M.C. 3918/2019 & 3919/2019 Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIR Nos.
730/2014 under Sections 323/354(B)/34 of IPC and FIR No. 729/2014
under Sections 323/354(B)/506/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police
Station Khyala, Delhi is 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 of cross FIR Nos. 730/2014 & 729/2014
are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so, by
Inspector C.L. Meena on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Complainants of cross FIR Nos. 730/2014 & 729/2014 affirm the
contents of their affidavits and submit that the misunderstanding, which
led to registration of the cross FIRs in question, now stands cleared
amongst the parties and that 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 continuance
of proceedings arising out of the cross FIRs in question, would be an
exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of
these cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to costs of
₹10,000/- per petition to be deposited by petitioners 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, cross FIR Nos.
730/2014 under Sections 323/354(B)/34 of IPC and FIR No. 729/2014
under Sections 323/354(B)/506/509/34 of IPC both registered at Police
Station Khyala, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall
stand quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 09, 2019
p'ma
