Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 19 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 19, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4028/2019
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Tanwar and
Ms. Jyoti Bharti, Advocates
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Madan Lal
Respondents No. 2 to 5 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.33574/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 4028/2019
Quashing of FIR No.302/2018, under Sections 323/452/506/427/34
of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-23 Dwarka, Delhi is sought on
the basis of affidavits of Respondents No. 2 to 5.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that due to inadvertence,
the name of co-accused-Arun was left out and has handed over 'Amended
Memo of Parties' impleading co-accused - Arun s/o Sh. Jai Prakash in
this petition. The 'Amended Memo of Parties' is taken on record.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State submits that respondents No.2 to 5, present in the Court, are
the complainant/party of FIR in question and they have been identified to
be so, by SI Madan Lal on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Respondent No. 2-Swati Surhatia, wife of petitioner No. 1, submits
that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in
question, now stands cleared between the parties and she is happily
residing with petitioner No. 1- husband for the last one year. Respondents
No. 2 to 5 affirm the contents of their affidavits supporting this petition
and submits that now no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to
restore cordiality between the parties, who are related to each other, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end
against all the accused.
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."
The subject matter of this FIR arises from matrimonial dispute,
which stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, and so,
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an
exercise in futility as misunderstanding between the parties now stands
cleared.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed subject to costs of
₹10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners 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.302/2018, under Sections
323/452/506/427/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-23,
Dwarka, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2019
v
