Allowed

Nitin Sharma & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Jul 2019CRL.M.C./3169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court held that since the matrimonial dispute was settled and the misunderstanding cleared, continuing criminal proceedings would be futile. The petitioner was ordered to deposit costs in the PM's Relief Fund, and quashing was subject to realization of the demand drafts.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR and emanating proceedings quashed qua petitioners subject to deposit of costs in PM's Relief Fund and realization of demand drafts.

Nitin Sharma & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: July 05, 2019

¶2

- CRL.M.C. 3169/2019 & Crl.M.A. 13035/2019

¶3

NITIN SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Aman Bhardwaj & Mr. Kunal Nath, Advocates

¶4

Versus

¶5

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with ASI Rajbir 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.457/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 16^th May, 2019 of respondent No.2/complainant 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 later on, offence under Section 354/354-B/509/34 IPC has been added against petitioner No.4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is the complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by ASI Rajbir, on the basis of identity proof produced by her.

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019

¶12

Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submits that she has received the balance settled amount of ₹4,00,000/- by way of four demand drafts bearing Nos. 008126, 008140, 008143 and 00812 (amounting to ₹1,00,000/- each), revalidated on 3^rd July, 2019, drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi from petitioners. She affirms the contents of her affidavit of 16^th May, 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. Respondent No.2 submits that subject to realization of afore-noted demand drafts, 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

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.”

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019

¶19

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, 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.

¶20

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹10,000/to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within one week 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.457/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners. It is made clear that if the revalidated drafts are not honoured and are returned to respondent No.2 by the concerned bank, then petitioners shall handover fresh demand drafts of settled amount to respondent No.2 within a week of its return.

¶21

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

¶22

JULY 05, 2019 r

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 3169/2019

Nitin Sharma & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Sharma & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of 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

Sunil Yadav & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

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

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs C.B.I.

Mahboob @ Bhura Vs State (Govt of NCT Ofdelhi)

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

Shiv Bhagwan Goel Vs State