Kashi Mandal & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3291 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of Reserve: July 06, 2010
                                                     Date of Order: 15th July, 2010
W.P.(CRL) No. 1567/2008
%
                                                                 15.07.2010

KASHI MANDAL & ORS.                                             ... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, Adv.

                Versus

STATE & ANR.                                                   ... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Piyush Singh for Mr. Vikas Pahwa,
                         ASC for State along with SI Sandeep Yadav, P.S. Naraina


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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?

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR on the basis of

a compromise.

2. The petitioner was facing trial under section 380, 420, 468 & 471 IPC at

P.S. Naraina. As per the allegations made against the petitioner, the

petitioner had stolen cheque along with its counter-foil from the office of

complainant at Naraina. The complainant learnt about this theft upon

reconciliation of his accounts on 21st October, 2008, when he found that

amount of Rs. 14, 75,000/- had been drawn to the account of petitioner No. 1

Kashi Mandal. The complainant immediately approached his banker and

learnt that this amount was transferred on 13th June, 2008 to the account of

petitioner No. 1. Further inquiry revealed that the account was opened by the

petitioner No. 1 with Union Bank of India for the purpose of encashing the

stolen cheque wherein he had filled almost entire amount lying in the account

of petitioner no. 2 leaving a balance of only Rs. 16,000/-. An FIR was

registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint of the complainant

and the petitioner was apprehended and produced before the court on 24 th

October, 2008. He was sent to JC and was released on bail on 24th November,

2008. It is thereafter that the petitioner entered into a compromise and

agreed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 14.75 lacs and the present

petition was filed after this compromise.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in view of the amicable

settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the fact that the

complainant , who is respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of FIR,

this FIR should be quashed.

4. The offence committed by the petitioner is not a minor offence or an

offence of trivial nature involving some loss of money individually to

respondent no. 2. The petitioner first stole the cheque, forged the signatures

of the complainant on the cheque, verified what was the amount lying in the

bank, prepared forged cheque of the complainant of almost entire amount

lying in the bank, opened another account in his name and then got the entire

amount transferred in his name. The offence is of forgery, theft apart from

cheating were prima-facie committed. Considering seriousness of the

offences committed by the petitioner no. 1, I consider it would not be

appropriate to quash the FIR. The option of plea-bargaining is available to the

petitioner. The petitioner should resort to this option of plea-bargaining if so

advised.

5. This petition is hereby dismissed.

July 15, 2010                                  SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm