SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rohit Sharma vs State & Anr. on 22 July, 2019


Date of Order: July 22, 2019

+ CRL.M.C. 3500/2019
ROHIT SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lakshendrya Kumar,


STATE ANR. ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Ayush Kumar
Respondent No.2 in person.




Quashing of FIR No. 853/2016, under Sections 498A/Section406/Section34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi is sought on the basis
of mediated settlement of 13th December, 2018.

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 SI Ayush Kumar on the basis of identity proof
produced by her.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
Crl.M.C. 3500/2019 Page 1 of 3
between the parties has been amicably resolved in terms of mediated
settlement of 13th December, 2018. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents
of her affidavit of 18th July, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that
now no dispute with petitioner 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 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

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.”

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 ₹10,000/-

Crl.M.C. 3500/2019 Page 2 of 3

to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund
within two weeks 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. 853/2016, under Sections 498A/Section406/Section34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi and the proceedings
emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

JULY 22, 2019

Crl.M.C. 3500/2019 Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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