Delhi High Court
Gulshan Tara & Ors vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 15 July, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: July 15, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3322/2019 & CRL.M.A. 30898/2019
GULSHAN TARA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawan,
Ms. Akshita Chhatwal and
Mr. Vinay Duggal, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Pankaj.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
+ CRL.M.C. 3328/2019 & CRL.M.A. 30908/2019
DEEPAK CHAUDHARY & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawan,
Ms. Akshita Chhatwal and
Mr. Vinay Duggal, Advocates.
Versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with SI Pankaj.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of cross FIR Nos.
108/2017 under Sections 308/323/341/34 of IPC and FIR No.109/2017
under Sections 308/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Paschim
Vihar, Delhi is sought on the ground that the misunderstanding which led
to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these
petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that complainants of cross FIR Nos. 108/2017 & 109/2017
are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so, by SI
Pankaj on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Complainants of cross FIR Nos. 108/2017 & 109/2017 affirm the
contents of their affidavits and submit that the misunderstanding, which
led to registration of the cross FIRs in question, now stands cleared
amongst the parties and that now, no grievance between parties survives
and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are residents of the
same locality, 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 cross FIRs in question, would be an
exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of
these cross FIRs, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed subject to consolidated
costs of ₹10,000/- per petition to be deposited by petitioners with Prime
Minister's National Relief Fund within a 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, cross FIR Nos.
108/2017 under Sections 308/323/341/34 of IPC and FIR No.109/2017
under Sections 308/34 of IPC both registered at Police Station Paschim
Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioners.
These petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 15, 2019
v
