AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
Quashing of FIR No. 100/2017 under Sections 323/354B/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavit of 14th 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.
Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondents No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of
FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Satbir, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondents No. 2, present in the Court submits that the misunderstanding between the parties has been amicably resolved. She affirms the contents
of her affidavit of 14th May, 2019 and submits 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, 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 64 1has 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.â€
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 Rs. 10,000/-to be deposited by petitioners 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. 100/2017 under Sections 323/354B/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.