Delhi High Court
Ravi Bhola & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 8 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 08, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2485/2019
RAVI BHOLA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Rajbir Singh
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate with
respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
CRL.M.A.9857/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A.9858/2018 (delay)
There is delay of 40 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay
is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2485/2019
Quashing of FIR No.91/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi is sought on the
basis of affidavit of 2nd July, 2018.
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 ASI Rajbir Singh 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 as today, she has
received an amount of ₹50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.
084580 dated 15th February, 2019 drawn on State Bank of India, Gandhi
Nagar Branch, New Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of
her aforesaid affidavit of 2nd July, 2018 and submits that now no dispute
with petitioners survives 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:-
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 ₹25,000/-
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.91/2015, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 08, 2019
v
