Delhi High Court
Sheru @ Sher Mohammad & Ors vs The State & Ors on 7 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2460/2019
SHERU @ SHER MOHAMMAD & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.K. Shukla, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Rajeev Kumar
Respondent No. 2-Vikash and
respondent No. 4-Sunita in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.9749/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 2460/2019
Quashing of FIR No.81/2017, under Sections 308/323/452/34 of
IPC, registered at police station Harsh Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis
of affidavits of 12th April, 2019 of respondents No. 2, 3 and 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 No. 2-Vikash and respondent No. 4-Sunita
present in the Court, are the complainant party of FIR in question and
they have been identified to be so, by SI Rajeev Kumar, on the basis of
identity proof produced by them.
Respondent No. 2-Vikash and respondent No. 4-Sunita present in
the Court, affirm the contents of their affidavits of 12th April, 2019.
Respondent No. 2 submits that he is appearing on behalf of respondent
No.3- Rajeev @ Nitin, who is his brother and is unwell today and cannot
come to the Court. Respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 submit that
the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question,
now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against
petitioners remains and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who
are residing in the same locality, 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."
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 a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No.81/2017, under Sections 308/323/452/34 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 07, 2019
v
