Delhi High Court
Saddam Ansari vs State & Ors. on 3 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 03, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2413/2019 & CRL.M.A. 9543/2019
SADDAM ANSARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh K.Chandna, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Usman
Ali.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 36/2017, under Sections 363 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavits of 1st May, 2019 of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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-
State submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 present in the Court, are the
complainants/first-informant of FIR in question and they have been
identified to be so, by SI Usman Ali, on the basis of identity proof
produced by them.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 present in the Court, affirm the contents of
their affidavits of 1st May, 2019 and submit that the misunderstanding,
which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared
between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioner survives and
so, to restore cordiality between the parties, 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."
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 ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within a week from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of
costs within two weeks thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No. 36/2017, under Sections 363 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Anand Parbat, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 03, 2019
p'ma
