AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
Quashing of FIR No.13/2017 under Sections 308/34/341 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of
20th February, 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 he has been identified to be so, by SI Avesh Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of his affidavit of 20th February, 2019 and submits that the misunderstanding, which ledÂ
to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore
cordiality amongst the parties, who are related to each other, 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;
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, FIR No.13/2017 under
Sections 308/34/341 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.