Delhi High Court
Shabuddin & Ors vs State & Anr. on 20 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 20, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2695/2019 & CRL.M.As. 10781-10782/2019
SHABUDDIN & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Amrendra.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 438/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police
Station Nand Nagri, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement of 12th
March, 2014 reached between the parties.
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 Amrendra 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 ₹75,000/- from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her
affidavit of 6th May, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no
dispute with petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality between 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, FIR No. 438/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of
IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police
Station Nand Nagri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
hereby quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 20, 2019
p'ma
