Delhi High Court
Rajender Kumar @ Bharat & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 24 July, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: July 24, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3562/2019 & CRL.M.A. 31822/2019
RAJENDER KUMAR @ BHARAT & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Moshin Qureshi, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with ASI
Krishan Pal.
Mr. Abbas Khan, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 260/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC, & Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at
Police Station Seelampur, District North East, Delhi is sought on the
basis of settlement deed of 25th July, 2018 (Annexure P-4) and affidavit
of 22nd July, 2019 of respondent No.2.
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 ASI Krishan Pal 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 aforesaid settlement
deed of 25th July, 2018 (Annexure P-4) and terms thereof have been fully
acted upon. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 22nd
July, 2019 supporting 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 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.
Consequentially, FIR No. 260/2016, under Sections 498A/406/34
of IPC, & Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at
Police Station Seelampur, District North East, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 24, 2019
p'ma
