Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2463/2019 & Crl.M.A. 9763/2019
S.R. KATOCH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.S. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State with SI Alok Bajpai
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 49/2008, under Sections 406/409/420/468/
471/120B IPC, registered at Police Station EOW Crime Branch, New
nd
Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 22 April, 2019 of respondent
No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to
registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the
parties. It is submitted that there is no forgery angle involved.
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 Alok Bajpai, on the basis of identity proof
CRL.M.C. 2463/2019 Page 1 of 3
produced by her.
Respondent No. 2 present in the Court, submits that the
misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now
stands cleared between the parties and now, no grievance against
petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality between the parties,
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
During the course of hearing, attention of this Court was drawn to
th
the order of 25 February, 2015 of this Court in CRL.M.C.No.
3512/2014, to submit that case of petitioner is at par with the case of co-
accused Surender Sood & Anr., in Crl.M.C. 3512/2014 against whom this
very FIR stands quashed.
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:-
“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;”
In the facts and circumstances of this case and on the parity aspect,
CRL.M.C. 2463/2019 Page 2 of 3
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 between the
parties.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed s ubject 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, of FIR No. 49/2008, under Sections 406/409/420/
468/471/120B IPC, registered at Police Station EOW Crime Branch, New
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2019
r
CRL.M.C. 2463/2019 Page 3 of 3