Delhi High Court
Pintu Kumar Pandit & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 6 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 06, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 969/2017
PINTU KUMAR PANDIT & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Shekhar Gupta, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI Sachin
Yadav
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.510/2013, under Sections 288/304A/201/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of
respondent No. 2's affidavit of 17th January, 2019.
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 he has been identified
as the father of deceased, by SI Sachin Yadav on the basis of identity
proof produced by him.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the incident in
question was purely accidental and he does not hold petitioners guilty of
any neglect and submits that he has been duly compensated 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 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."
The facts as mentioned in the status report needs no reproduction.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the
incident in question was purely accidental and so, 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 ₹50,000/-
to be paid by petitioners to respondent No. 2 within a week from today.
Upon placing on record the proof of payment of costs within a week
thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR
No.510/2013, under Sections 288/304A/201/34 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2019
v
