Delhi High Court
Kiran Kumar Anand & Anr. vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 19 March, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 19, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1517/2019 & Crl.M.A. 6010-11/2019
KIRAN KUMAR ANAND & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mayank Sawhney, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. . Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with ASI Praveen
Kumar.
Ms. Kanika Sawhney, Advocate
with respondent No.2 in person.
Ms. Vandana Anand, Advocate for
respondents No.3 to 4 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 338/2016, under Sections 323/ 506/452/34
IPC, registered at police station K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi is sought on
the basis of mediated settlement of 1st August, 2017 (Annexure P-10) and
affidavit of 6th March, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that
the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question,
now stands cleared between the parties.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State submits that initially FIR in this case was registered under
Section 406 IPC, but subsequently charge sheet has been filed for the
offences under Sections 323/506/452/34 IPC. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that respondent No.2,
present in the Court, is the complainant/ first-informant of FIR in
question and he has been identified to be so, by ASI Praveen Kumar, on
the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared between the parties in terms of mediated settlement of 1st
August, 2017 (Annexure P-10). Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of
his affidavit of 6th March, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that
now, no grievance against petitioners as well as respondents No.3 & 4
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".
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 in
question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹15,000/-
to be equally deposited by petitioner No. 1 and respondents No.3 & 4
with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a week from today.
Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week
thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.
338/2016, under Sections 323/ 506/452/34 IPC, registered at police
station K.N. Katju Marg, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners and respondents No.3 & 4.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2019
r
