Harry Bond @ Harish v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9018/2023 HARRY BOND @ HARISH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State with SI Pushpendra Pandey PS Cyber Police Station, Shahdara, Delhi.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 01.03.2024 1.

The present proceedings are instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 53/2023 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Cyber Police Station Shahdara, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. 2.

The allegations in the present FIR pertain to fraud with respect to insurance policies.

3.

Mr. Aashneet Singh, learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the only accused and respondent No.2 is the only complainant/victim in the present case.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR has been registered due to misunderstanding. He further submits that parties have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.06.2023, a copy of which has been placed on record as AnnexureThe authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

P2. In terms of the said settlement, complainant is now left with no claim or grievance against the petitioner.

5.

Petitioner who is present in the Court has been identified by counsel as well as the I.O./SI Pushpender PS Cyber Police Station, Shahdara, Delhi. 6.

Petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future. Respondent No. 2 also states that he has settled the disputes with the petitioner out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion and that he has received all the amount. He further states that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed. 7.

The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.

8.

In Parbatbhai Aahir and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641, it has been held as under:- "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 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..."

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported as (2019) 5 SCC 403, it has been held as under:- "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;"

10.

In view of the above facts and considering that no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11.

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 1, 2024/rd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.