In CRL.M.C. 1262/2019, the Delhi High Court, relying on Parbatbhai Aahir, quashed an FIR along with emanating proceedings as the matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled by the parties.
Quashing of FIR No. 17/2013 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of Order: March 07, 2019
versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Prabhakaran Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 4955/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1262/2019
Quashing of FIR No. 17/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 15th December, 2018 reached between the parties.
Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved, as today she has received
Page 1 of 3
CRL.M.C. 1262/2019
an amount of ₹1,25,000/-by way of demand draft bearing No. 110225, dated 29th January, 2019 drawn on Corporation Bank, Kabir Nagar, Shadra, New Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 29th January, 2019 filed in support of 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:-
“16.7. 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;”
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, FIR No. 17/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Dabri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
Page 2 of 3
CRL.M.C. 1262/2019
This petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
MARCH 07, 2019
v
Page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C. 1262/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC should be quashed upon resolution of the matrimonial dispute.
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings when an overwhelming element of civil dispute exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶19
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PRAVEZ & ANR
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
Resident Wife
SUNIL GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
