SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Malhotra & Ors. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 14 February, 2019

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

+ CRL.M.C. 841/2019 and CRL.M.As. 3377-3378/2019

KARAN MALHOTRA ORS …..Petitioners

Through: Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ANR …..Respondents

Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI
Rajender Singh
Mr. Sahil Munjal, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER

(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 179/2017, under Sections
498A/406/354/377/34 of IPC registered at police station Malviya Nagar,
Delhi is sought on the basis of second respondent’s affidavit of 11th
February, 2019.

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 SI 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 affidavit of
CRL. M.C. 841/2019 Page 1 of 4
11th February, 2019 and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as
today, she has received the settled amount of ₹4,00,000/- by way of
Demand Draft bearing No. 00025 of 13th February, 2019. Respondent
No.2 affirms the contents of her aforesaid affidavit of 11th February, 2019
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.

CRL. M.C. 841/2019 Page 2 of 4

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.
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

CRL. M.C. 841/2019 Page 3 of 4
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.”

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 ₹50,000/-
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. 179/2017, under Sections
498A/406/354/377/34 of IPC registered at police station Malviya Nagar,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.

This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.

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

CRL. M.C. 841/2019 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