Harpal Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 3903 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of Order: August 22, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 4095/2019 & Crl.M.A. 33902/2019
       HARPAL SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. V.P.Singh Bidhuri, Advocate.

                          Versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                        ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Ms. Aasha Tiwari, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent
                                       No.1-State with SI Puran Singh.
                                       Respondent No.2 in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

(ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 228/2010, under Sections 420/406/409 of IPC, registered at police station Gokulpuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 24th July, 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, who is present in Court, is the complainants of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Puran Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

Respondent No. 2, present in the Court submits that the

misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved and today she has received amount of ₹30,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 506906, dated 3rd August, 2019, drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch New Delhi from petitioner. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 24th 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 between the parties.

Consequentially, FIR No. 228/2010, under Sections 420/406/409 of IPC, registered at police station Gokulpuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AUGUST 22, 2019 r