This order grants quashing of an FIR for cheating and forgery regarding a property transfer after finding the dispute was commercial with a civil flavour and had been amicably settled by the parties.
FIR No. 271/2013 and consequent proceedings are quashed; miscellaneous applications disposed of.
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.
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 901/2023, CRL.M.A. 3457/2023, CRL.M.A. 3458/2023
RAMESH GIRI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate with petitioners are in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Sita Ram, P.S. Karawal Nagar. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Mr. Nishant Singh, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R % 07.02.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:28:19
respondent No. 2 are related to each other and present FIR has been registered due to misunderstanding. He further submits that parties have amicably settled their disputes vide Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed dated 28.02.2018, a copy of which has been placed on record. In terms of the said settlement, complainant is now left with no claim or grievance against the petitioners.
“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
xxx 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 in so far 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
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:28:19
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; and…”
“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences Under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;”
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
FEBRUARY 7, 2024 ga
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/12/2024 at 14:28:19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC arising from a property transfer dispute may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon amicable settlement and withdrawal of grie
Whether the predominant civil character and resolution of the dispute by the parties warrants the exercise of inherent power to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbatbhai Aahir and Others v. State of Gujarat and AnotherExplained¶18
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and OthersExplained¶25
(2019) 5 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Giri & Ors.
State
Respondent No. 2
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Parties & counsel
