Anil Kumar Nimesh@ Nikku vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 20 May, 2019

[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Delhi High Court

Anil Kumar Nimesh@ Nikku vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 20 May, 2019

Bench: Sunil Gaur

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Order: May 20, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 2698/2019 & Crl.M.A. 10793/2019
       ANIL KUMAR NIMESH@ NIKKU               ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Yoginder Singh, Advocate.

                         Versus

       NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Dr.M.P.Singh, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for respondent No.2-
                                      State with SI Shiv Prakash.
                                      Respondent No.2 in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         ORDER
                         (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 267/2016, under Section 308/34 IPC, registered at police station Anand Parbat, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 16th May, 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.

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 he has been identified to be so, by SI Shiv Prakash, on the basis of identity proof produced by him.

CRL.M.C. 2698/2019 Page 1 of 3

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. Respondent No.2 affirms contents of his affidavit of 16th May, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now, no grievance against petitioner survives and so, to restore cordiality between the parties, who are residing in the same locality, 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, FIR No. 267/2016, under Section 308/34 IPC, CRL.M.C. 2698/2019 Page 2 of 3 registered at police station Anand Parbat, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioner.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 20, 2019 r CRL.M.C. 2698/2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court