Delhi High Court
Manoj Nagpal & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 27 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 27, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1157/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4499/2019
MANOJ NAGPAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari,
Advocate with petitioners in
person
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M. P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Dharmendra
Mr. D.K.Singh, Advocate with
respondents No.2 & 3 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 103/2018, under Sections 420/406/ 120B/34
IPC, registered at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi is sought
on the basis of affidavits for respondents No.2 & 3.
Upon notice, Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State, submits that respondents No.2 & 3, present in the
Court, are the complainant party of the FIR in question and they have
been identified to be so, by their counsel as well as by SI Dharmendra on
the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Respondents No.2 & 3, present in the Court, submit that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and settlement
has been acted upon, as today they have received amount of ₹15,00,000/-
by way of demand draft bearing No. 978889, dated 25th February, 2019,
drawn on Vijaya Bank, Branch Nehru Place, New Delhi from petitioners
and now no dispute with petitioners survives. They affirm the contents of
their affidavits of 26th February, 2019 filed in support of this petition and
submit that the proceedings arising out of 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 dispute between the parties now stands mutually and
amicably resolved, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of
the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition and the application are allowed subject
to costs of ₹75,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's
National Relief Fund within one 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, of FIR No. 103/2018, under
Sections 420/406/120B/34 IPC, registered at police station Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
r
