Delhi High Court
Rohit Kumar Aggarwal vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr. on 22 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 22, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4623/2018 & CRL.M.A. 1170/2019
ROHIT KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI Rajesh
Kumar
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
with respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.288/2018, under Sections 406/420/34 of IPC
registered at police station Mehrauli, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Memorandum of Understanding of 13th August, 2018 and on the ground
that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, 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
complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been
identified to be so, by her counsel as well as by SI Rajesh Kumar 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
Memorandum of Understanding of 13th August, 2018 and she affirms the
contents of her Affidavit of 10th September, 2018 supporting this petition.
Respondent No. 2 submits that the dispute between the parties now stands
amicably resolved and she has got the actual possession of the subject
property 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:-
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 dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved,
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 weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost,
and tendering its copy to the Investigating Officer of this case, FIR
No.288/2018, under Sections 406/420/34 of IPC registered at police
station Mehrauli, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall
stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRAURY 22, 2019
v
