Sanjiv Dutta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Sunil Gaur, J

Quashing of FIR No. 299/2010, under Sections 341/420/467/471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of

affidavit of 22nd 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.

At the outset, petitioner’s counsel submits that there is typographical error in the memo of parties and he has handed over the amended memo of

parties which is taken on record.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of

FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Vikas Kumar, 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 his affidavit of 22nd July, 2019 and submits that there is no forgery angle and 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, 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 there is no forgery angle and the misunderstanding which led to registration of the  FIR in

question, now stands cleared between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in

futility.

Consequentially, this petition is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund

within a week 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. 299/2010, under Sections 341/420/467/471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating

therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.