Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sajid & Ors. Vs.state & Ors.

Sajid & Ors. vs State & Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 24, 2019
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1222788

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajid & Ors.

Respondent

State & Ors.

Excerpt

.....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 amongst the parties. crl.m.c. 2135/2019 page 2 of 3 accordingly, fir no.188/2015, under sections 323/452/5of ipc, registered at police station welcome colony, new delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners. this petition and application are accordingly disposed of. dasti. (sunil gaur) judge april24 2019 p’ma crl.m.c. 2135/2019 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 24, 2019 CRL.M.C. 2135/2019 & CRL.M.A. 8555/2019 SAJID & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. S.B. Pandey & Mr. M. Bansal, Advocates. Versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector S.P. Singh. Mr. S.M. Shah, Advocate with Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.188/2015, under Sections 323/452/5
of IPC, registered at Police Station Welcome Colony, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of 6th April, 2019 of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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- State submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 present in the Court, are the complainants/first-informants of FIR in question and they have been identified to be so, by Inspector S.P. Singh, on the basis of identity proof produced by them. Crl.M.C. 2135/2019 Page 1 of 3 Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 present in the Court, submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared amongst the parties and now, no grievance against petitioners survives and so, to restore cordiality amongst 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 SCC641has 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 amongst the parties. Crl.M.C. 2135/2019 Page 2 of 3 Accordingly, FIR No.188/2015, under Sections 323/452/5
of IPC, registered at Police Station Welcome Colony, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners. This petition and application are accordingly disposed of. Dasti. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL24 2019 p’ma Crl.M.C. 2135/2019 Page 3 of 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial