Inder Preet Singh Sahni vs Anoop Sharma
2003 Latest Caselaw 37 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This petition is for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 323, 406 and 506, IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant does not oppose the prayer and submits that at) the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably resolved. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner' is settled in USA and the complaint was on account of some disputes between the complainant who was an employee and the petitioner who was an employer which have been amicably resolved. It is also pointed out that the police had declined to take any action in the matter and filed a closure report on the complaint filed by the respondent. The learned MM had declined the permission to the parties for compounding the offence as the offences under Sections 406 & 506, IPC are not compoundable.

2. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is of the considered view that the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner was an abuse of the process of law. The police after investigations had found no substance in it but the respondent filed a complainant with a view to pressurise the petitioner: The respondent/complainant present in Court also prays that the complaint may be quashed.

3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case in which this Court should invoke its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the complaint pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, stands quashed.