Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 13 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 13, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2550/2019
AJAY KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Taneja & Mr. Rijul
Taneja, Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with Inspector Vijay Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 36/2018, under Section 354 IPC r/w Section
3(i) (w) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2015, registered at police station Nabi Karim, Delhi is
sought on the basis of affidavit of 1st May, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and
on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the
FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.
Petitioners' counsel submits that necessary ingredients of the
offence under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2015 are lacking and instant FIR is an offshoot of
landlord-tenant dispute, which now stands amicably resolved.
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 Inspector Vijay Kumar, on the basis of identity
proof produced by her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, submits that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against
petitioners 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."
Considering that the necessary ingredients of offence under The
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 2015 are lacking and that the landlord-tenant dispute stands amicably
resolved between the parties, 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, FIR No. 36/2018, under Section 354 IPC r/w Section
3(i) (w) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2015, registered at police station Nabi Karim, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2019
r
