Delhi High Court
Sunny Nagpal @ Sunny Ramesh Nagpal vs State & Anr. on 22 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 22, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1021/2019
SUNNY NAGPAL @ SUNNY RAMESH NAGPAL..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prateek Prabhakar, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with ASI
Lakhan Singh
Mr. Gaurav Saini, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 1236/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC registered at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis
of Mediated Settlement of 26th May, 2018 reached 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 ASI Lakhan Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by
her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Mediated
Settlement of 26th May, 2018 and terms thereof have been fully acted
upon as today, she has received the settled amount of ₹2,25,000/- by way
of Demand Draft bearing No. 947670 of 18th February, 2019.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th February,
2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with
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 complaint, 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;
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question
would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within two days. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs
within two days thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating
Officer, FIR No. 1236/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC
registered at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 22, 2019
p'ma
