The court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC registered for matrimonial disputes upon a mediated settlement between parties, ruling that continuation would be futile.
FIR No. 842/2015 and proceedings therein quashed quos petitioners.
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 08, 2019
SACHIN GARG & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Tandon, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with SI Sandeep Kumar Mr. Tarun Diwan, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 842/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC , registered at police station Vasant Kunj, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 12th March, 2018 between the parties.
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 Sandeep Kumar 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. She affirms the contents
Page 1 of 3
CRL.M.C.1281/2019
of Mediated Settlement of 12th March, 2018 and of her affidavit of 6th March, 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, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/ - to be deposited by petitioners 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. 842/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of
CRL.M.C.1281/2019
Page 2 of 3
IPC , registered at police station Vasant Kunj, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
MARCH 08, 2019
r
Page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C.1281/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A/406 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute should be quashed upon mutual settlement.
Whether the continuation of proceedings would cause oppression given the amicable resolution between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶15
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SACHIN GARG & ORS.
THE STATE
Respondent No.2
SUNIL GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUNIL GAUR
Parties & counsel
