Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2509/2006
th
% Date of Decision: 26 November, 2007
# Gurmeet Singh Sawhney .....Petitioner
! Through Mr. Jayant Sood, Advocate
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
Mr. Rishi Sethi, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
AND
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2512/2006
# Gurmeet Singh Sawhney .....Petitioner
! Through Ms. Jayant Sood, Advocate
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
Mr. Rishi Sethi, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner by these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has sought quashing of FIRs no. 404/2002 and 405/2002 for
the offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code
(‘I.P.C.’ in short) both registered on 28.10.2002 at Adarsh Nagar Police Station
against him and some other persons and the criminal proceedings also emanating
therefrom pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts. Since
these petitions were filed after the dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent no. 2-complainant had been compromised and were taken up together
for hearing, I shall dispose them of by this common judgment.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent no. 2-complainant, a company
engaged in the business of financing transport and commercial vehicles filed two
criminal complaints against some persons including the petitioner herein for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 403/ 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/
471/ 477A/ 120B/ 34 I.P.C. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police to
register FIR pursuant to which the aforesaid two FIRs were registered. After
completion of investigation charge sheets were filed in the Court against the
petitioner and one Anup Kumar Soni.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was the Divisional Manager of the
respondent no. 2 and his co-accused Anoop Soni was the Branch Manager at the
complainant Company’s Azadpur Branch during the relevant period. They were
authorised to advance finance for transport vehicles to genuine customers after
proper verification of the documents furnished by the customers. These two FIRs
were lodged by the complainant when it was found that the two charge-sheeted
accused had cheated the Company of Rs. 2,40,000/- (in both the cases) by
extending finance to non existent persons and for non existent vehicles after
preparing false documents.
4. During the pendency of the cases in Court the petitioner has resolved the
dispute and has arrived at an amicable settlement with the complainant and the
parties have executed a compromise deed dated 26.05.2007, copy of which has
been placed on record and in view of that compromise these petitions have been
filed for quashing of the two FIRs and the on going trial. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that since compromise has been arrived at between the
parties no useful purpose would be served if the trial goes on. In support of this
submission he placed reliance upon one judgment of the Apex Court in “ Nalini
Shankaran & Ors. v. Neelkanth Mahadeo Kamble & Ors.” 2007 (2) Crimes 329
(SC), and two judgments of this Court in “ Rishi Raj & Ors. v. The State” 2001 (2)
JCC 234 and “ Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.” 131(2006)DLT 130.
5. Notice of this petition was given to the State as well as respondent no. 2-
complainant. Complainant filed affidavits of its authorized representative in both
the petitions wherein it was affirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved
and that the complainant had no objection if the FIRs and the criminal proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed. On 03.10.2007 learned counsel for the
complainant also submitted that though the other accused has not filed a petition
for quashing of the FIRs and two cases pending against him but even qua him FIRs
and the two cases can be quashed since the dispute has been settled as a whole.
6. Learned APP for the State, however, opposed quashing of the FIRs on the
ground that allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are grave in nature
and the offences under which they are charged are not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. and so if these offences are permitted to be compounded that
would amount to bye-passing the provisions of section 320 Cr.P.C. which should
not be done by this Court by exercising the inherent jurisdiction vested in it under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. It is now well settled by many judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
FIRs even in respect of those offences which are not compoundable under section
320 Cr.P.C. can be quashed as also the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
if it is felt by the Court while dealing with a quashing petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. that it would secure the ends of justice if the FIR and criminal proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed and continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to
one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in “ B.S.Joshi &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.”, AIR 2003 SC 1386 wherein it has been so held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly in the case (2007 (2) Crimes 329) relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioner criminal case pending in the Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 418/409/166 I.P.C. was quashed because of
the settlement between the complainant Trust and the accused persons. The
offence under Section 409 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment which can be for
life also. Still, the FIR was quashed. Even in the judgments of this Court, cited by
the counsel for the petitioner, FIRs for the offences of cheating, forgery etc. were
quashed in view of the settlement between the complainants and the accused
persons. In another case decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which is
reported as 2006 (2) JCC 1127 “Sanjay Goel & Ors. v. The State” FIR and the
criminal proceedings emanating therefrom even in respect of an offence
punishable under Section 467 I.P.C., for which offence also even life imprisonment
can be awarded, were quashed since the complainant and the accused had
amicably compromised the matter. Therefore, in the present two cases also the
FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed
because of the settlement between the complainant and the accused which would
secure the ends of justice and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
accused would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. In view of the foregoing, I allow these petitions and consequently FIR nos.
404/2002 and 405/2002 for the offences under Sections
403/406/420/467/468/471/477A/120B/34 I.P.C. registered at Adarsh Nagar
Police Station on 28.10.2002 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
stand quashed in respect of both the charge-sheeted accused.
P.K.BHASIN, J
November 26, 2007
sh
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2509/2006
th
% Date of Decision: 26 November, 2007
# Gurmeet Singh Sawhney .....Petitioner
! Through Mr. Jayant Sood, Advocate
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
Mr. Rishi Sethi, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
AND
+ Crl. M.C. No. 2512/2006
# Gurmeet Singh Sawhney .....Petitioner
! Through Ms. Jayant Sood, Advocate
versus
$ State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.
Mr. Rishi Sethi, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner by these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has sought quashing of FIRs no. 404/2002 and 405/2002 for
the offences under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code
(‘I.P.C.’ in short) both registered on 28.10.2002 at Adarsh Nagar Police Station
against him and some other persons and the criminal proceedings also emanating
therefrom pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts. Since
these petitions were filed after the dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent no. 2-complainant had been compromised and were taken up together
for hearing, I shall dispose them of by this common judgment.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent no. 2-complainant, a company
engaged in the business of financing transport and commercial vehicles filed two
criminal complaints against some persons including the petitioner herein for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 403/ 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/
471/ 477A/ 120B/ 34 I.P.C. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police to
register FIR pursuant to which the aforesaid two FIRs were registered. After
completion of investigation charge sheets were filed in the Court against the
petitioner and one Anup Kumar Soni.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was the Divisional Manager of the
respondent no. 2 and his co-accused Anoop Soni was the Branch Manager at the
complainant Company’s Azadpur Branch during the relevant period. They were
authorised to advance finance for transport vehicles to genuine customers after
proper verification of the documents furnished by the customers. These two FIRs
were lodged by the complainant when it was found that the two charge-sheeted
accused had cheated the Company of Rs. 2,40,000/- (in both the cases) by
extending finance to non existent persons and for non existent vehicles after
preparing false documents.
4. During the pendency of the cases in Court the petitioner has resolved the
dispute and has arrived at an amicable settlement with the complainant and the
parties have executed a compromise deed dated 26.05.2007, copy of which has
been placed on record and in view of that compromise these petitions have been
filed for quashing of the two FIRs and the on going trial. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that since compromise has been arrived at between the
parties no useful purpose would be served if the trial goes on. In support of this
submission he placed reliance upon one judgment of the Apex Court in “ Nalini
Shankaran & Ors. v. Neelkanth Mahadeo Kamble & Ors.” 2007 (2) Crimes 329
(SC), and two judgments of this Court in “ Rishi Raj & Ors. v. The State” 2001 (2)
JCC 234 and “ Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors.” 131(2006)DLT 130.
5. Notice of this petition was given to the State as well as respondent no. 2-
complainant. Complainant filed affidavits of its authorized representative in both
the petitions wherein it was affirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved
and that the complainant had no objection if the FIRs and the criminal proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed. On 03.10.2007 learned counsel for the
complainant also submitted that though the other accused has not filed a petition
for quashing of the FIRs and two cases pending against him but even qua him FIRs
and the two cases can be quashed since the dispute has been settled as a whole.
6. Learned APP for the State, however, opposed quashing of the FIRs on the
ground that allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are grave in nature
and the offences under which they are charged are not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. and so if these offences are permitted to be compounded that
would amount to bye-passing the provisions of section 320 Cr.P.C. which should
not be done by this Court by exercising the inherent jurisdiction vested in it under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. It is now well settled by many judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
FIRs even in respect of those offences which are not compoundable under section
320 Cr.P.C. can be quashed as also the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
if it is felt by the Court while dealing with a quashing petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. that it would secure the ends of justice if the FIR and criminal proceedings
arising therefrom are quashed and continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law. Reference in this regard can be made to
one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in “ B.S.Joshi &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.”, AIR 2003 SC 1386 wherein it has been so held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly in the case (2007 (2) Crimes 329) relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioner criminal case pending in the Court for the
offences punishable under Sections 418/409/166 I.P.C. was quashed because of
the settlement between the complainant Trust and the accused persons. The
offence under Section 409 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment which can be for
life also. Still, the FIR was quashed. Even in the judgments of this Court, cited by
the counsel for the petitioner, FIRs for the offences of cheating, forgery etc. were
quashed in view of the settlement between the complainants and the accused
persons. In another case decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which is
reported as 2006 (2) JCC 1127 “Sanjay Goel & Ors. v. The State” FIR and the
criminal proceedings emanating therefrom even in respect of an offence
punishable under Section 467 I.P.C., for which offence also even life imprisonment
can be awarded, were quashed since the complainant and the accused had
amicably compromised the matter. Therefore, in the present two cases also the
FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed
because of the settlement between the complainant and the accused which would
secure the ends of justice and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
accused would amount to abuse of process of law.
8. In view of the foregoing, I allow these petitions and consequently FIR nos.
404/2002 and 405/2002 for the offences under Sections
403/406/420/467/468/471/477A/120B/34 I.P.C. registered at Adarsh Nagar
Police Station on 28.10.2002 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom
stand quashed in respect of both the charge-sheeted accused.
P.K.BHASIN, J
November 26, 2007
sh