Sahara India Commercial ... vs The National Capital Territory Of ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1400 Del

                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WP (Crl.) No. 585 of 2008


                            Date of Decision:- 20th August, 2008



       Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited ...    Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. D.C. Mathur Sr. Advocate
                             with . K.L. Lahiri, Advocate
                                 Versus
       The National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr ...      Respondents
                                 Through: Mr. Ranjeet Kapoor, Advocate
                                 Mr. R.K. Vashisht, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA

       1.      Whether reporters of local paper may be
               allowed to see the judgment? Yes
       2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes


       3.      Whether the judgment should be referred in
               the Digest? Yes


S. L. BHAYANA, J.

This is a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. r/w Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 418/2007, registered at

P.S. Patel Nagar, New Delhi, u/s 406/ 420/ 120-B IPC dated 21.7.2007.

2. Adumbrated in brief facts leading to the registration of FIR

and filing of present Writ Petition are that a complaint was filed by the

complainant/ respondent No.2, u/s 406/ 420/ 120-B IPC with Economic

Offences Wing of Delhi Police.

The sum and substance of the complaint is that petitioner/

accused launched a scheme under Sahara city Home and Rajat Yojana

in the year 2003 for the booking and allotment of the plots around

village Chauma Gurgaon, Haryana. The complainant believing on the

said inducement booked the flats. Details of payment made by them

are given below:-

   Control No.            Date      of    A/c            Deposited
                          opening A/c     holders        amount
                                          name

   18389206531            27.12.2003      Darshan        Rs.1,00,000
                                          Singh
                          Sahara Swarn    Chanana

   18389206532            27.12.2003      Darshan        Rs.1,00,000
                                          Singh
                          Sahara Swarn    Chanana

   18389200976            31.5.2003       Darshan        Rs.10,000
                                          Singh
                          Sahara Rajat    Chanana

   18389200982            31.5.2003       Gurjit         Rs.10,000
                                          Kaur
                          Sahara Rajat

                                          Total          Rs.2,20,000
                                          amount

But no plot has been allotted to them even after 2-3 years of

booking and payment of money and thereby petitioner/corporation

has, by making false representation through print media, induced

complainant to part with huge amount and utilized the money

entrusted/deposited by the complainant for their own purposes and

misappropriated the same. Again Sahara India Pariwar had cheated

them by inducing them to book a plot in the alleged Scheme with a

promise of a house/flat without having the requisite license for setting

up a residential township from the competent authority.

3. During investigation the complainant and petitioner

resolved their disputes and arrived at a compromise. A memorandum

of settlement-dated 25.3.2008, copy of which has been placed on

record, was executed between the parties. In view of that compromise

this petition for quashing of FIR has been filed. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that since the matter has been compromised

between the parties no useful purpose would be served if the

investigation in respect of the FIR is allowed to continue. In view of the

settlement, respondent No.2 also affirmed on an affidavit dated march

25, 2008 undertaking to withdraw complaint against the petitioner.

The respondent No.2 has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,34,798/- in full and

final settlement of all his claims to his satisfaction. In support of the

prayer for quashing of FIR learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madan

Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. The relevant para

of the judgment is reproduced below:-

"It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal on between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no

public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is a purely personal nature the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and benefit of the technicalities of the laws. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. T he outer limit of Rs. 250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."

4. Notice of this petition was given to respondent No.2 and

State. Respondent No.2/ complainant entered appearance before

Court and stated that he and his wife Smt. Gurjit Kaur were in

accordance with clause 8 (d) of the Scheme offered a housing unit at

the place of preference no.3 (Gurgaon) or in the alternative to take

back their advance amount along with accrued credit value. However

they chose to take back/ withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees

One Lac Fifty thousand only) on 14.1.2006 against their advance

amount and upon such withdrawal, they ceased to be bona-fide

members of the scheme and he and his wife Smt. Gurjit Kaur do not

want to pursue the aforesaid case any further nor submit any further

evidence particularly since they do not have any other or further

evidence to offer nor desire to prosecute the accused in the aforesaid

case as they have received all their money and have voluntarily

compromised the matter without any coercion or undue influence.

5. Learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the

quashing of FIR on the ground that the allegations against the

petitioner are grave in nature and involve public policy.

6. After considering the submissions advanced on behalf of

both the parties, I am of the view that both the parties i.e the

complainant/ respondent No.2 and the petitioner have amicably

settled the matter and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs 1,34,798/- to

the complainant as full and final settlement of all his claims and the

complainant now does not want to pursue the complaint any further,

there would be hardly any chance of conviction where complainant is

not supporting the case of the prosecution. Continuance of such

proceedings is nothing but sheer wastage of precious time of court

and an exercise in futility. It is well settled that where particular

criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process, the Court is

empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to precede the trial.

7. In a very recent case titled as Hamida Vs Rashid @rasheed

(2008) 1 SCC 474, the Supreme Court took the view that a procedural

code however, exhaustive, cannot expressly provide for all time to

come against all the cases or points that may possibly arise, and in

order that justice may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must in

proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or for

the purpose of carrying out the other provisions of the Code. It is a well

established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex

debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the

administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the

process of the Court.

8. In the case of State of Kathataka v. L. Muniswami, (2002) 3

SCC 89, the Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are

higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be

administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the

Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate in to a

weapon of harassment or persecution.

9. In the case of Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Kaushalya, (1980) 1

SCC 63, the essence of compromise has been summoned up in

following words:-

"The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion".

10. Purpose of criminal law system is not only to enforce penal

law and bring discipline in the society but is also to provide an

opportunity to litigating parties to rehabilitate themselves in life.

Compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and

peace. Both the parties in the instant case have made an attempt in

that regard, it requires to be appreciated.

11. I, accordingly, allow the petition and direct that FIR No.

418/2007, registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, Delhi, u/s 406/ 420/120-B IPC

shall be quashed.

S. L. BHAYANA, J.

August 20, 2008