Delhi High Court
Pranay Chawla vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 21 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 21, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1288/2019
PRANAY CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manisha Ambwani &
Ms. Charu Ambwani, Advocates.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Rajvir Singh.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 10939/2019
By way of this application, early hearing of the main petition is
sought.
Upon hearing, I find that sufficient cause is shown to prepone the
date of hearing. The date of 17th July, 2019 fixed in the petition is
accordingly cancelled and it is taken up for hearing today itself.
The application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1288/2019
In view of orders passed in Crl.M.A. 10939/2019, the date of 17 th
July, 2019 fixed in this petition is cancelled and it is taken up for hearing
today itself.
Quashing of FIR No. 1524/2015, under Sections 354/
354A/354B/379/506 IPC, registered at police station Binda Pur South
West, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 23rd January, 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.
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 Rajvir Singh, 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. Respondent No.2 affirms contents of
her affidavit of 23rd January, 2019 supporting this petition and submits
that now, no grievance against petitioner survives and so, to restore
cordiality between the parties, who are working in the same office,
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 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. 1524/2015, under Sections 354/
354A/354B/379/506 IPC, registered at police station Binda Pur South
West, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed
qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2019
r
