Rohit Sharma @ Rohit & ORS v. State (Govt. Of NCT Delhi) & ANR

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 16, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 2051/2019 & Crl.M.A. 8144/2019 ROHIT SHARMA @ ROHIT & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Dhananjay Kapoor Singh, Advocate.

Versus

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through:

Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Praveen Kumar Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.

176/2018, under Sections 354/354B/379/356/452/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mutual Agreement (Annexure-B) of 19th April, 2018 and affidavit of 27th December, 2018 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. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState 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 ASI Praveen Kumar, on the basis of identity proof 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 submits that now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality between the parties, who are neighbours, 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 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, 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 subject to costs of ₹30,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four 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.

176/2018, under Sections 354/354B/379/356/452/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 16, 2019 r