Allowed

Sunil Yadav & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jul 2019CRL.M.C./3150/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a 132-day delay in re-filing and allowed a petition to quash an FIR involving IPC offences 323, 354, 506, 498A, and 34. Finding that the dispute was settled and the misunderstanding cleared, the court quashed the proceedings subject to payment of costs to the PMNRF.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No. 202/2015 and proceedings emanating therefrom quashed qua petitioners. Petitioners required to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

Sunil Yadav & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: July 04, 2019

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3150/2019

¶4

SUNIL YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Jaswant Kumar Respondent No.2 in person

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

(ORAL)

¶10

Crl.M.A. 12966/2019

¶11

Delay of 132 days in re-filing the accompanying petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

¶12

Application is disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 3150/2019 & Crl.M.A. 12967/2019

¶14

Quashing of FIR No.202/2015 under Sections 323/354/506/498A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 16^th October, 2018 of respondent No.2/complainant and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now

¶15

Crl.M.C. 3150/2019

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

stands cleared between the parties.

¶18

Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that respondents No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Jaswant Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

¶19

Respondents No. 2, present in the Court, she submits that she has received the balance settled amount of ₹1,25,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 679263, dated 2^nd July, 2019, drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Palam Colony, Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 16^th October, 2018 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, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

¶20

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:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Crl.M.C. 3150/2019

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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.”

¶26

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 amongst the parties.

¶27

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/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.202/2015 under Sections 323/354/506/ 498A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

¶28

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

¶29

Dasti.

¶30

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶31

JULY 04, 2019 r

¶32

Crl.M.C. 3150/2019

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Sunil Yadav & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yadav & Ors. v. State & 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

Haresh Kumar Laxman Bhai & Co. & Ors. Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Monu Sharma & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

C.B. Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Kishan Chand Verma Vs State Thr. C.B.I.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs C.B.I.

Sushil Kumar Nijhawan & Ors. Vs State & Anr.