Ashok Dogra & Another vs State And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 1236 Del

                                    REPORTED
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   DATE OF RESERVE: February 02, 2009

                                    DATE OF DECISION: April 08, 2009

+            CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 and Crl. M.A. 9171/2007

      ASHOK DOGRA & ANR.                 ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Biswajeet Swain, Advocate

                     versus



      STATE & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                              Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State/R-1
                                       R-2 in person
                                       Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for Standard
                                       Chartered Bank


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


:     REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the criminal

proceedings arising out of FIR No. 161/01 registered at R.K.Puram, P.S. for

the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid First Information

Report as reflected from the said Report itself are that on 16.02.2001, the

complainant-respondent No.2 went to the Cards Services Division of Standard

Chartered Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for settlement of his SCB Card No.

5543748080019612. There he met one Mr. Deep Pal Singh, Assistant

Manager, Customer Assistance, who agreed to settle the said card on a

payment of Rs. 27,500/- as against the current balance of Rs. 34,170.20. The

payment was to be made through cheque. As respondent No.2 was not

carrying the cheque, he went home to collect the same. On reaching home, the

respondent no.2 received a telephone call from one Mr. Rajesh who lured him

to settle the card for Rs. 22,000/-, i.e., Rs.20,000/- + Rs.2,000/- as service

charges as against Rs.27,500/- as offered by Mr. Deep Pal Singh provided it

was paid in cash. He was also informed that the said Mr. Rajesh worked with

Mr. Deep Pal Singh. He (the respondent No.2) was asked to be ready with the

cash which was to be given to Mr. Kaushal on the following day and the latter

would hand over to him the settlement paper and cash receipt. On the

following day, i.e., on 17.02.2001, in the evening, Mr. Kaushal came to the

respondent No.2's house, and the respondent No.2 after verifying that his

identity card was duly endorsed by the Standard Chartered Bank handed him

the sum of Rs.22,000/- in cash. Mr. Kaushal then handed over the settlement

of account letter and receipt dated 17.02.2001 for Rs.20,000/-. It was only after

a week that he came to know that he had been cheated when the bank called

him to immediately deposit Rs. 35,043/- being an overdue demand. On

verification the Bank Manager confirmed that the signature on the settlement

letter was not that of Mr. Deep Pal Singh nor the receipt for Rs.20,000/- was

issued by any bank personnel, and that both the documents were forged and the

respondent No.2 had been duped of Rs.22,000/- in connivance with the bank

employees.

3. The respondent no.2 thereupon lodged an FIR on 15.03.09 and on the

same day the petitioners were arrested and send to judicial custody, but were

granted bail by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge with the direction to pay the

alleged cheated amount of Rs. 22,000/-, which counsel for the parties affirm

has since been paid by the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 has since

then entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has given an affidavit

stating his willingness to cooperate in the quashing of the FIR, keeping in view

of the future prospects of the petitioners. This is affirmed by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the following judgments of

this court wherein FIRs alleging offences which under the scheme of the Code

are non-compoundable were quashed by this Court in the light of a

compromise between the parties:

1. Neelu Gupta & Ors. vs State 2007 [3] JCC 1938

2. Ajay Kumar & Ors. vs. State & Anr. 2006 [2] JCC 1073

3. Shri Krishan K. Seth & Ors. vs. State & Others 114 (2004) DLT

4. G. Udayan Dravid & Ors. vs. State & Others 2007 [1] JCC 127

5. Ankit Sachdeva vs. State & Anr. 2009 [1] JCC 56

6. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon the

recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2008 [4] JCC 2311 to urge that it has been

categorically held in the said case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon

its earlier decision in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675, that

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit or effect the

power of the court to quash criminal proceedings or FIRs or complaints even in

the case of non-compoundable offences. [See also Manoj Sharma Vs. State

2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)].

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law and the facts and

circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, it would be in the

interest of justice to quash the FIR in the instant case as dragging on of the

criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be a futile exercise and a

gross wastage of the precious time of the Court at the expense of the public

exchequer. Accordingly, FIR No. 161/01 registered at Police Station

R.K.Puram against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 406,

420, 468, 471 of IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby

quashed.

CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 and Crl. M.A. 9171/2007 stand disposed of

accordingly.

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

APRIL 08, 2009