Mizul Singh vs State & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3344 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Date of Order: July 22, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 3479/2019 & Crl.M.A. 31513-14/2019

       MIZUL SINGH                                 ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Anuj Saini & Mr. Praveen
                                       Kumar, Advocates.

                          Versus

       STATE & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for respondent
                                       No.1-State with SI Naveen Kumar.
                                       Respondent No.2 in person.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

(ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 83/2013, under Sections 498A/406/ 343/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 15th July, 2019 of second respondent.

Petitioners' counsel has handed over certified copy of the joint statement of parties recorded on 15th July, 2019 by the matrimonial court wherein terms of settlement have been recorded.

Upon notice, learned 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 SI Naveen 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 settlement recorded in the joint statement of parties on 15 th July, 2019. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 15th July, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner 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".

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, FIR No. 83/2013, under Sections 498A/406/ 343/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, New Delhi

and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.

This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JULY 22, 2019 r