Naveen Aggarwal & Anr Vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court 7 Mar 2019 Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1256 Of 2019
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1256 Of 2019

Hon'ble Bench

Sunil Gaur, J

Advocates

Rakesh Malhotra, M.P.Singh, Manish Vashisht

Final Decision

Disposed Off

Acts Referred

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 451, 452, 506#Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482

Judgement Text

Translate:

CRL.M.A.4943/2019 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 1256/2019

Quashing of FIR No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of IPC registered at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and trial court order of 29th

May, 2017 vide which petitioners have been summoned under Sections 451/323/341/506/34 of IPC, is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of

4th February, 2019 and on the ground that misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.

Dr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate, accepts notice on

behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentâ€"State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the

FIR in question and he has been identified to be so, by his counsel on the basis of identity proof produced by him.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and he affirms the contents of

aforesaid Mediated Settlement of 4th February, 2019 and his affidavit of 25th February, 2019 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute

with petitioners survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are neighbours, the 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 64 1has reiterated the parameters for exercising

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, 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;â€​

Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR 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, now stands cleared between the parties.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of ₹20,000/-to be deposited by petitioners with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a

week from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No. 67/2011, under Sections 452/323/34 etc. of IPC registered at police station

Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and aforesaid summoning order of 29th May, 2017 shall stand quashed qua petitioners.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dasti.

From The Blog
Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Read More
M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Read More