Delhi High Court
Nimish Jain & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 28 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 28, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1177/2019 & Crl.M.A. 4572/2019
NIMISH JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocates
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Hari Ram
Ms. Anusuyea, Advocate with
respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 578/2014, under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC,
registered at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi is sought on
the basis of Settlement Deed of 1st November, 2018 (Annexure P-2).
Upon notice, Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-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 her counsel as well as by SI Hari Ram 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 Settlement Deed of
1st November, 2018 (Annexure P-2) and terms thereof have been fully
acted upon, as today she has received amount of ₹5,00,000/-by way of
demand draft bearing No. 888808, dated 26th February, 2019, drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Branch Chandni Chowk, Delhi from petitioners. She
affirms the contents of aforesaid Settlement Deed of 1st November, 2018
(Annexure P-2) and her affidavit of 13th February, 2019 filed in support
of this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners 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 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, FIR No. 578/2014, under Sections 406/498-A/34
IPC, registered at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 28, 2019
r
