Delhi High Court
Manish Sharma & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 11, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 22/2019
MANISH SHARMA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Goswami, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Amit Kumar
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 1147/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi is sought on the basis
of Mediated Settlement of 11th April, 2018 (Annexure-B) reached between
the parties.
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 Amit 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 ₹1,50,000/-by way of demand draft bearing No. 939946,
dated 20th December, 2018, drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Krishna
Nagar, Branch, New Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of
her affidavit of 1st December, 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, FIR No. 1147/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2019
p'ma
