Abhay Sharma vs State & Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 2401 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Date of Order: May 07, 2019

+       CRL.M.C. 2470/2019
        ABHAY SHARMA                                     .....Petitioner
                       Through:         Mr. Manish Jauhari, Advocate

                           versus

        STATE & ANR                                        .....Respondents
                           Through:     Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for respondent-State
                                        with SI Yashdeep
                                        Respondent No. 2 in person
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           ORDER

(ORAL)

CRL.M.A.9780/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 2470/2019 Quashing of FIR No.716/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-2 colly) of 12th October, 2016.

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 Yashdeep on the basis of identity proof

produced by her.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-2 colly) of 12th October, 2016 and she affirms the content of her affidavit of 26th April, 2019 and submits that she is happily living with petitioner-husband since October, 2016. Respondent No. 2 submits that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, 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 subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled 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 petitioner 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.716/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.

This petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 07, 2019 v