Quashed

Jipta & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2019CRL.M.C./1031/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed an FIR arising from a criminal complaint where the parties clarified a misunderstanding leading to the registration. The High Court applied inherent jurisdiction principles, finding conviction remote due to settlement, and dismissed the proceedings to restore cordiality.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.13/2017 under Sections 308/34/341 of IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Jipta & Anr. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: July 08, 2019

¶2

- CRL.M.C. 1031/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4147/2019 JIPTA & ANR .....Petitioners

¶3

Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

¶4

Versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Avesh Kumar Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶8

Quashing of FIR No.13/2017 under Sections 308/34/341 of IPC, registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 20^th February, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.

¶9

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that respondent No. 2 present in the Court, is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by SI Avesh Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

CRL.M.C. 1031/2019

¶12

Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, affirms the contents of his affidavit of 20^th February, 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 and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, who are related to each other, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

¶13

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:-

¶14

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.

¶15

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;

¶16

In the facts and circumstances 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 in question, now stands cleared between the parties.

¶17

Accordingly, FIR No.13/2017 under Sections 308/34/341 of IPC,

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

CRL.M.C. 1031/2019

¶20

registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶21

This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶23

JULY 08, 2019
v

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

CRL.M.C. 1031/2019

Jipta & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jipta & Anr. v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahboob @ Bhura Vs State (Govt of NCT Ofdelhi)

Mrs. Kritimma Deep Kaur Vs Sh. Tapeshwar Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Shiv Bhagwan Goel Vs State

Anupam Maurya Vs State

M Prosecutrix Vs State

Sameer Ahmad @ Baba Vs State of NCT of Delhi