High CourtsSingle Bench

Nitin Bajaj & Ors vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 17 May 2019 · Citation: (2019) 05 DEL CK 0315

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Gaur, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2679 Of 2019, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10693 Of 2019

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 402 words

Quashing of FIR No. 183/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, New Delhi is sought on the basis of

affidavit of 18th April, 2019 of respondent No.2.

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-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 W/SI Jyoti Yadav on the basis of identity proof produced by

her.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and she affirms the contents of her

affidavit of 18th April, 2019 and submits that now no dispute with 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€​

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, 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. 10,000/-to be deposited by petitioners 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. 183/2016 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating

therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.