AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
CRL.M.A. 30904/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 3327/2019
Quashing of FIR No.561/2014 under Sections 323/452/354-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of
10th July, 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 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 Gajender, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of her affidavit of 10th July, 2019 and submits that the misunderstanding, which led to
registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against petitioner survives and so, to restore
cordiality between the parties, who are residents of the same locality, 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 between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 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.561/14 under Sections 323/452/354-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.