Delhi High Court
Amar & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 26 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 26, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1085/2019 & Crl.M.A. 4294/2019
AMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Mathur, Advocate with
petitioners in person
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Pradeep Kumar
Mr. Parul Rohtagi, Advocate with
respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 953/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Model Town, Delhi is sought on the basis
of mediated settlement of 1st February, 2018 (Annexure-C) reached
between the parties.
Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State, accepts notice and 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 Pradeep 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 in terms of mediated
settlement of 1st February, 2018 (Annexure-C) and in terms thereof, today
she has received amount of ₹1,50,000/-by way of demand draft bearing
No. 203826, dated 25th February, 2019, drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Branch Vishal Enclave, Delhi from petitioners and now no dispute with
petitioners survives, except that petitioner-husband has to file second
motion petition for obtaining decree of divorce.
At this stage, counsel for petitioners submits that second motion
petition for obtaining decree of divorce would be filed by petitioner-
husband within four weeks from today.
Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 23rd
October, 2018 supporting this petition and submits that 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, FIR No. 953/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Model Town, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed with the rider that in case
petitioner-husband does not file petition under Section 13 B(2) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 within four weeks, then second respondent will be at
liberty to get this order revoked.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
r
