SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nitin Sharma & Ors. vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 5 July, 2019

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: July 05, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3169/2019 Crl.M.A. 13035/2019
NITIN SHARMA ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Aman
Bhardwaj Mr. Kunal Nath,
Advocates
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ANR. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
with ASI Rajbir
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

(ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No.457/2015 under Sections 498A/Section406/Section34 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of
affidavit of 16th May, 2019 of respondent No.2/complainant 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 later on, offence under Section 354/Section354-B/Section509/Section34 IPC
has been added against petitioner No.4. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that respondent No. 2,
who is present in Court, is the complainant of FIR in question and she has
been identified to be so, by ASI Rajbir, on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019 Page 1 of 3

Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that she has
received the balance settled amount of ₹4,00,000/- by way of four
demand drafts bearing Nos. 008126, 008140, 008143 and 00812
(amounting to ₹1,00,000/- each), revalidated on 3rd July, 2019, drawn on
HDFC Bank, Branch Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi from petitioners. She
affirms the contents of her affidavit of 16th May, 2019 and submits that
the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question,
now stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against
petitioners survives. Respondent No.2 submits that subject to realization
of afore-noted demand drafts, 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 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.”

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019 Page 2 of 3

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which
now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, 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 amongst the parties.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/-
to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund
within one 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.457/2015 under Sections 498A/Section406/Section34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners. It is made clear
that if the revalidated drafts are not honoured and are returned to
respondent No.2 by the concerned bank, then petitioners shall handover
fresh demand drafts of settled amount to respondent No.2 within a week
of its return.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 05, 2019
r

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019 Page 3 of 3

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