Delhi High Court
Akash Maheshwari & Ors vs The State & Anr on 29 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 29, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 209/2019 & CRL.M.A. 890/2019
AKASH MAHESHWARI & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Krishan Kumar and Mr. S.P.
Nangia, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with ASI Brijeshwar Dayal.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No.101/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi is sought on the
basis of affidavit of 16th November, 2018 of second respondent.
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 Brijeshwar Dayal 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
₹50,000/- in cash. She affirms the contents of her aforesaid affidavit of
16th November, 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:-
"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 ₹10,000/-
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.101/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2019
v
