Delhi High Court
Sunil Yadav & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 4 July, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: July 04, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3150/2019
SUNIL YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Jaswant Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 12966/2019
Delay of 132 days in re-filing the accompanying petition is
condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3150/2019 & Crl.M.A. 12967/2019
Quashing of FIR No.202/2015 under Sections
323/354/506/498A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Village,
Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 16th October, 2018 of
respondent No.2/complainant and on the ground that the
misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondents No. 2, who is present in Court, is the
complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by
ASI Jaswant Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondents No. 2, present in the Court, she submits that she has
received the balance settled amount of ₹1,25,000/- by way of demand
draft bearing No. 679263, dated 2nd July, 2019, drawn on State Bank of
India, Branch Palam Colony, Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the
contents of her affidavit of 16th October, 2018 and submits that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against
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 proceedings, 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."
In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance
of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in
futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in
question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.
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 proof of
deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No.202/2015 under Sections 323/354/506/
498A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 04, 2019
r
