Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 3 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 03, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2407/2019
PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kali Charan, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vinit
Kumar
Mr. Parvesh Chaudhary, Advocate
with respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.493/2014, under Sections 341/354-
A/504/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi is
sought on the basis of settlement of 27th November, 2017 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 Vinit Kumar on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the
differences between the parties have been amicably resolved as today,
she has received compensation of ₹1,00,000/- by way of demand draft
bearing No. 368226 dated 30th April, 2019 drawn on State Bank of India,
Vasundhra Branch, Ghaziabad from petitioners. She affirms the contents
of the settlement of 27th November, 2017 and submits that 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 proceedings, 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 misunderstanding between the parties now stands
mutually and amicably resolved 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 costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within two weeks 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.493/2014, under Sections 341/354-
A/504/506/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019
v
