Delhi High Court
Sahil & Anr vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 18 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 18, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1455/2019
SAHIL & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramnit Singh, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Bharat
Lal
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey & Mr.
Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocates
with Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 190/2013, under Sections 186/353/332/34 of
IPC registered at police station Hauz Khas, Delhi is sought on the basis of
Affidavit of 2nd March, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that
the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands
cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the
complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he has been
identified to be so, by SI Bharat Lal on the basis of identity proof
produced by him.
Respondent No.2-Mahender Kumar, present in the Court, submits
that the misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved
and he affirms the contents of aforesaid Affidavit of 2nd March, 2019
supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners
survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, 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".
In the facts and circumstances 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 `10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within four weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of costs
and handing over its copy to Investigation Officer, FIR No. 190/2013,
under Sections 186/353/332/34 of IPC registered at police station Hauz
Khas, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 18, 2019
p'ma
