Delhi High Court
Sonu & Ors. vs State And Anr on 13 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 13, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1351/2019 and CRL.M.As. 5396-5397/2019
SONU & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karam Chand Jha, Advocate
Versus
STATE AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Suresh Kumar
Mr. Satyam Singh, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 333/2011, under Sections 406/34 of IPC and
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station
New Usmanpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of
5th September, 2017 (Annexure A-1) 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 ASI Suresh 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 vide aforesaid Mediated
Settlement of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure A-1) and terms thereof have
been fully acted upon. Respondent No. 2 affirms the contents of her
affidavit of 02nd May, 2018 filed in support of 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 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. 333/2011, under Sections 406/34 of IPC and
under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station
New Usmanpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2019
p'ma
