AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
Crl.M.A.30714/2019
There is delay of 29 days in re-filing the accompanying petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and delay is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3278/2019 & Crl.M.A. 30713/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 211/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of
settlement of 10th August, 2018 recorded before the Family Courts (West) and affidavit of 16th March, 2019 of respondent No.2/complainant 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 Court, is the complainant of FIR in
question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Rajbir, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that settlement of 10th August, 2018 recorded before the Family Courts has been acted upon.
However, she submits that she has incurred an expense of Rs. 50,000/- to get her passport (which was lost by petitioners) re-issued from Mumbai.
She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 16th March, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that subject to petitioners putting to terms for losing
her passport, 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€
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, I find that 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 Rs. 50,000/-to be paid by petitioners to second respondent towards re-issuance of her lost
passport. At this stage, counsel for petitioners submits that amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be remitted by petitioner No.1-husband into the bank account
of second respondent through RTGS within two weeks.
Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of second respondent and handing over its copy to the Investigating
Officer, FIR No. 211/2017, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners. It is made clear that if amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not deposited by petitioner No.1- husband in the bank
account of second respondent through RTGS within two weeks, then respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to get this order revoked.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.