Delhi High Court
Hifzur Rehman & Ors. vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 8 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 08, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1284/2019
HIFZUR REHMAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramesh & Mr. V.S.Chauhan,
Advocates
Versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .. Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with ASI
Parveen Kumar
Mr. A.A.Khan, Advocate with
respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 5094/2019
Delay of 25 days in re-filing the accompanying petition is
condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1284/2019 & Crl.M.As. 5092-93/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 43/2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at police
station Khajuri Khas, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement
of 27th April, 2017 reached between the parties.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the mediated settlement has
been acted upon and a sum of ₹10,000/- would be paid by petitioner-
husband to respondent-wife at the time of divorce in accordance with the
law.
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 Parveen 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, as today she has received
an amount of ₹50,000/- from petitioner. She affirms the contents of
Mediated Settlement of 27th April, 2017 and of her affidavit of 2nd
August, 2018 filed in support of 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 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;"
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, this petition is allowed subject to petitioner-husband
paying a sum of ₹10,000/- to second respondent-wife at the time of
divorce as per law, FIR No. 43/2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at police
station Khajuri Khas, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed with the rider that if either of the parties do not abide by
the undertaking, then the aggrieving party can approach this Court for
revocation of this order.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 08, 2019
r
