Delhi High Court
Naveen Aggarwal & Anr. vs State & Anr on 7 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1256/2019
NAVEEN AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate
with respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.4943/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1256/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of
IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and trial court
order of 29th May, 2017 vide which petitioners have been summoned
under Sections 451/323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis of
Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and on the ground that
misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared
between the parties.
Dr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits
that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant
of the FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by his counsel
on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved and he affirms the
contents of aforesaid Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and his
affidavit of 25th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that
now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality
amongst the parties, who are neighbours, 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;"
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR 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, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹20,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within a week from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR
No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of IPC registered at police
station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and aforesaid summoning order of 29th
May, 2017 shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 07, 2019
v
