The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mukesh Bhatia & Ors. vs The State of Nct of Delhi & Anr. consisting of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that Section 174A IPC is a standalone provision which has no bearing to the other alleged offences and is not an offence of personal nature.
Facts
The case was registered on the complaint of Dr. Dharamveer Singh Baliyan alleging of being duped by accused Mukesh Bhatia in collusion with his associates Jaiprakash, and Advocate Kanchan and Regional Manager Onkar Nath of Rs, 64,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-four lacs) in cash and Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs) through cheque/ RTGS from the Complainant. As per the complaint, Rs. 3.50 lacs as advance money for process, Rs.35 lacs for security, Rs.20 lacs for license and Rs.10 lacs for processing charge for getting the NOC from various departments for an outlet retailer shop Petrol Pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, at the plot of the complainant’s wife.
Procedural History
During investigation, the accused Jai Prakash Sharma was arrested and remanded for two days. During police remand, he disclosed the conspiracy and modus of cheating and was enlarged on bail by the Court after payment of Rs. 19 lacs to the complainant. Further the accused Mukesh Bhatia was declared as Proclaimed Offender and section 174A IPC was added in the present case. He was arrested in present case and subsequently, was enlarged on bail by the Court after payment of Rs.11.50 lacs to the complainant. Accused Raghvendra Singh Kanchan and Onkar Nath were granted anticipatory bail by Hon’ble High Court.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Since no dispute or grievance was left between the parties and the parties have compromised the matter in an amicable and peaceful manner via compromise cum settlement deed, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present case.
Respondent: Allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, however, since the parties had amicably settled their disputes, the state had no objection if the FIR in question was quashed. He further submitted that though this Court may quash offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, however since Section 174A IPC does not affect the complainant but the administration of justice, the same may not be quashed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that in the instant case, since the matter has been settled between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending. But the issue remains whether this Court can quash the FIR qua Section 174A IPC which is a standalone offence committed by the petitioner after registration of FIR as he had absconded and could not be arrested.
Judgment
Considering the nature of allegations in FIR being personal in nature, the Bench deemed it fit to quash the FIR qua Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, however since Section 174A IPC is a standalone provision which has no bearing to the other alleged offences and is not an offence of personal nature inter-se the parties i.e. the petitioners and respondent no.2 and respondent no.3, thus, this Court refrained from quashing the proceedings pursuant to the above-noted FIR qua Section 174A IPC. So, the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would now go on for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC and not qua offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC to which extent the proceedings pursuant to the FIR were quashed.
Case Name: Mukesh Bhatia & Ors. vs The State of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(CRL) NO. 1852 OF 2021
Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Decided on: 12th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
