Delhi High Court
R.N. Baranwal vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 19 January, 2007
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 246/1999 PS: Dwarka which had alleged that he committed offences under Section 420/468/471 IPC. A charge sheet was filed and on the basis of materials on record, the trial court by its order dated 30.8.2005 framed charges against the petitioner.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offences alleged were essentially of civil nature and that the complainant as well as the petitioner accused had settled their differences. Reliance has been placed upon the memorandum of understanding arrived at by the parties on 22nd November, 1999. In terms of the said document, the complainant who initiated the criminal proceedings recorded his satisfaction that the settlement had taken place. It has also been stated in the said agreement that the complainant has received all his payment and consideration from the petitioner accused. Learned Counsel relied upon an undertaking furnished by the said complainant on the same date stating that he has no any right over any such property.
3. The counsel submitted on 24.11.1999, the trial court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the course of the proceedings after satisfying itself that the complainant had settled his disputes with the petitioners.
4. The order dated 24.11.1999 enlarging the petitioner on bail records as follows:
Complainant Akash Jindal is present and states that he has settled the matter with the accused. The presence of the complainant is verified by the I.O. In the event of arrest of the petitioner he is entitled to bail on his furnishing a personal bond with surety of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of IO/Arresting Officer.
5. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the above circumstances, the trial court ought to have acceded to the request under Section 239 and drop proceedings; in stead it had proceeded and framed charges and went ahead with the matter.
6. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in G. Udayan Dravid and Ors. v. State and Ors. 2007 I AD (Delhi) 376 to say that offences in that case are similar, pertaining to Sections 420/468/471 IPC were involved and the Court had taken the view that the the proceedings ought to be quashed. He also relied upon the judgment in Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. State and Anr. 2006 (2) JCC 1073 to say that the Court quashed the proceedings alleging offences under Section 420/468/471 IPC after parties had arrived at a compromise and settlement.
7. Another judgment has been relied upon, namely, Smt. Veena Gaur and Ors. v. Neeta Anand and Ors. 2005 II AD (Delhi) 696. In that case, the court had quashed the criminal procedings on the ground that all disputes between the parties had been amicably settled as allegations under Section 468 and 471 were not at all made out in view of the fact that there was no forgery and that two sale deeds were executed in respect of the same property.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent State opposed the request for quashing and submitted that the offences involved as well as the allegations made against the petitioner were quite serious. It was submitted that the complainant had alleged that he was duped after having paid a substantial amount to the petitioner and that attempts to secure bail did not succeed after which the petitioner arrived at some sort of settlement. Learned Counsel urged that the order of the trial court impugned dated 6.4.2005 is legal and proper.
9. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inspector of Police, CBI v. B. Raja Gopal and Ors. 2002(2) Crimes 192 (SC) to say that where the case involved offences under Section 420/468/471 IPC the fact or that private complainant had settled the disputes, was inefficient reasons for quashing criminal proceedings and that it might be a good ground for pleading mitigation at the final state.
10. The complainant despite services of notice is not present before the Court. Therefore, the present dispute has to be decided on the basis of materials on record and submissions of the State as well as the petitioner.
11. Undoubtedly, a reading of the memorandum of understanding arrived at between the parties on 22nd November, 1999 and the undertaking said to have been executed by the complainant Dr. S.K. Jindal do substantiate the petitioner's contention that some sort of agreement was arrived at vis-a-vis the property dispute which was the subject matter of the First Information Report. The Court has also recorded that the complainant was present on 24.11.1999 and after satisfying itself that the settlement had been arrived at, the bail was granted to the petitioner.
12. The offences in question, barring Section 420 are non-compoundable. The decision in Ajay Kumar's case (supra) has been noticed in the subsequent judgment of this Court on G. Udayan Dravid and Ors. (supra). A reading of the relevant portion would indicate that quashing of proceedings in respect of the offences under Sections 420/468/471 read with Section 120B IPC was the basis of settlement was resorted to in Ajay Kumar. Equally, the decision in Smt. Veena Gaur indicates that in respect of the similar proceedings, the Court had invoked the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings. The question is whether it would be appropriate to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been, in my opinion, adjuged on the merit of each case. In the present case, the settlement alleged to have been arrived at took place on 24.11.1999, the charge was framed on 30.8.2005 when all these issues were gone into. Although, this court in two judgments has taken a view vis-a-vis the quashing of the proceedings on allegations of commission of offences under Section 468 and 471 IPC, that cannot be construed as an invariable thumb rule. The allegations in this case are serious, in that substantial amount of Rs. 35 lakhs is alleged to have been paid by the complainant to the petitioner who is alleged further to have used fabricated/forged documents.
13. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Moti Lal's case where the Court had taken the view that it would be premature to quash such proceedings. If the petitioner is able to utilize the settlement, for any other purpose including mitigation at final stage, it is open him to do so.
14. In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition and CRLMA 10366/2005 are accordingly dismissed.
