Delhi High Court
Karamvir & Ors vs The State & Ors on 27 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 27, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4422/2017
KARAMVIR & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Petitioners in person.
Versus
THE STATE & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Rajbir Singh.
Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.390/2008 under Sections 325/323/452/
354/427/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi
is sought on the basis of affidavits of 23rd October, 2017 of respondents
No. 2 & 3 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-
State submits that respondents No. 2 & 3 present in the Court, are the
complainant party of FIR in question and they have been identified to be
so, by ASI Rajbir Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by them.
Respondents No. 2 & 3 present in the Court, affirm the contents of
their affidavits of 23rd October, 2017 and submit that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against
petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who
are into T.V. Cable business, 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;"
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 amongst the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹35,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund
within four 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.390/2008 under Sections
325/323/452/354/427/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station New Ashok
Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2019
v
