SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 14 February, 2019

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 14, 2019

+ CRL.M.C. 830/2019 and CRL.M.A. 3345/2019

DINESH KUMAR ORS …..Petitioners

Through: Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advocate

Versus

STATE ANR …..Respondents

Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with
ASI Rajender Singh
Mr. Manohar Kumar, Advocate
with Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER

(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 701/2016, under Sections 498A/406/377/34
of IPC registered at police station Alipur, Outer District Delhi is sought
on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 17th March, 2018 (Annexure P-3).

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 she has been identified
to be so, by ASI Rajender Singh 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 vide aforesaid Mediated
Settlement of 17th March, 2018 (Annexure P-3)and terms thereof have
CRL. M.C. 830/2019 Page 1 of 4
been fully acted upon as today, she has received the settled amount of
₹3,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 107727 of 2nd February,
2019. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of her affidavit of 10th
December, 2018 supporting this petition 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 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. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court
to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the
ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash
a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power
to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

CRL. M.C. 830/2019 Page 2 of 4

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the
victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences.

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; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of the State have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in
declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the balance.”

CRL. M.C. 830/2019 Page 3 of 4

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the 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 ₹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. 701/2016, under Sections
498A/406/377/34 of IPC registered at police station Alipur, Outer District
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
p’ma

CRL. M.C. 830/2019 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation