Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DAILYLAW 3513 (DEL)

Himanshu Dawar & Ors. v. State & Anr.

2014-07-25

Pratibha Rani

body2014
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 576/2008, under Sections 379/467/468/471/120-B, IPC, registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Brief facts, as stated by the Petitioners in the present petition, are that the Respondent No. 2/complainant Smt. Vibha Sunil Taneja filed a complaint against the Petitioners in the Court of learned ACMM, New Delhi for committing the offences under Sections 379/467/468/471/120-B, IPC along with an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the Respondent No. 2/complainant is maintaining an account bearing No. 52810115332 at Standard Chartered Bank, South Ext. Branch, New Delhi. It was also alleged that a cheque book bearing No. 654026 to 654050, which was issued in the above said account was lost by her in May, 2004 and this was intimated to the Bank which had issued another cheque book. 3. It was further stated that the Respondent No. 2/complainant received a notice under Section 138, N.I. Act from the Counsel of the Petitioner No. 1 that a cheque bearing No. 654033 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by her in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 had been dishonoured due to reason ‘funds insufficient’. Inciden­tally, this cheque was issued from the cheque book which was actually lost by the complainant. The complainant replied to the said notice through her Counsel giving all the particulars. The complainant further alleged that the Petitioners along with some bank officials have committed forgery and misused the cheque. It was also alleged that the signatures on the cheque are not hers and the same have been forged. Thereafter, the complainant made various complaints to P.S. Malviya Nagar regarding this incident but no FIR was registered, hence she was constrained to approach the Court of learned ACMM by filing the criminal complaint and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.5.2008 issued directions for registration of FIR against the Petitioners and consequently the said FIR was registered against the Petitioners. It has been stated that the investigation is pending and charge sheet has not been filed. 4. It has been stated that the investigation is pending and charge sheet has not been filed. 4. It is further stated that after registration of FIR, the Petitioner No. 1 moved application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.6.2014. 5. It has been stated in the petition that the complainant and the Petitioners have resolved their differences and have mutually agreed to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases filed against each other and the Respondent No. 2 is not left with any grievance against the Petitioners. Further, various civil/criminal cases filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent No. 2 have also been withdrawn and complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal case against the petitioners any further and wants that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners any more, therefore, the FIR may be quashed. 6. Quashing of FIR is strongly opposed by learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, who submits that currently the trend emerging is to initiate criminal proceedings to pressurize the other party to make the payment/settle the dispute in order to avoid arrest and prosecution. Thus, the complainant party is able to get the recovery effected without filing any civil suit or paying any Court fee and in fact execution takes place on a non-existent decree so some cost must be imposed on the parties for wasting the precious time of the Court and using the State machinery virtually as a recovery agency. 7. Respondent No. 2/complainant is present in Court today and has been identified by his Counsel. She also affirms that she has amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioners and she is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 8. Offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/120-B, IPC are non-compoundable offences. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., VII (2012) SLT 171=IV (2012) CCR 115 (SC)=III (2012) DLT (Crl.) 104 (SC)= 2012 (9) SCALE 257 , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under: “57. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., VII (2012) SLT 171=IV (2012) CCR 115 (SC)=III (2012) DLT (Crl.) 104 (SC)= 2012 (9) SCALE 257 , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under: “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz., (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrong-doer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 576/2008, under Sections 379/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 11. It is directed that a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- by each Petitioner) be deposited with Law Officer, Public Support Fund, A/C No. S/B 006094624801 Indian Bank, Tihar Jail, IPS Code: IDIB000TI33 within four weeks. A receipt of deposit of the same be filed in the Registry. 10. It is, however, made clear that the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be kept in the form of FDR initially for a period of one year to be renewed thereafter from time-to-time and the interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for the welfare schemes for inmates. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General (Prisons), Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi for information and compliance.