* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 6343/2018
AMOD KUMAR VERMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kailash Gohani, Advocate
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR. …. Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with ASI Praveen Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
Quashing of FIR No. 432/2016, under Section 354 IPC, registered
at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi is sought on the basis of
Affidavit of 3rd October, 2018 of respondent No.2 and on the ground that
misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared
between the parties.
Mr. M.S.Oberoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present
in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she
has been identified to be so, by ASI Praveen Kumar on the basis of
identity proof produced by her.
Crl.M.C.6343/2018 Page 1 of 3
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the
misunderstanding between the parties has been now cleared and she
affirms the contents of aforesaid Affidavit of 3rd October, 2018
supporting this petition and submits that 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 641 has reiterated the parameters for
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR / criminal complaint, 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;”
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR 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, now stands cleared between the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `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
Crl.M.C.6343/2018 Page 2 of 3
deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the
Investigating Officer, FIR No. 432/2016, under Section 354 IPC,
registered at police station Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
MARCH 07, 2019
Crl.M.C.6343/2018 Page 3 of 3