Delhi High Court
Bhanu Pratap & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 2 December, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. No. 3201/2011
% Judgment delivered on:02nd December, 2011
BHANU PRATAP & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.N.Hari Haran, Mr.Murari
Kumar and Mr.Duga Dutt, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
State/respondent No.1 with SI Nirmal Kumar
police station Lajpat Nagar, Delhi in person.
Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Adv for R-2 with
attorney of bank in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR
No.1000/2004 dated 07.12.2004 case under Sections 406/420/468/
471/434/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2/ HDFC
Bank Limited.
2. He further submitted that the incident is of the year 2004 and
thereafter at the time of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners,
they agreed to pay total amount of ` 3.90 Lacs to respondent No.2,
bank which was agreed to and accepted by respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are real brothers and petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are
their friends. They all worked in the company named M/s EL
DOREDO Textiles Private Limited and it was required by the said
company that petitioners should have credit cards, therefore, they
forged Form No.16 and handed over photocopies thereof to the bank
officials. Pursuant to issuance of credit cards, they used and an amount
of ` 4.83 Lacs which was due to the petitioners. Respondent No.2/
bank had agreed and accepted the amount under „one time payment
scheme‟ for a total sum of ` 3.90 Lacs.
4. Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.2/
bank placed on record photocopy of the power of attorney dated
25.05.2011 in favour of Rajesh Kumar from the bank, who is present in
person.
5. On instructions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits
that bank had already received the payment from petitioners and bank
has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
6. On the other hand, Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP submits
that on completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed before
learned Trial Court.
7. She further submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the
FIR, then heavy costs should be imposed on the petitioners as by this
process, they have pressed the government machinery and consumed
the precious time of the Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that
they are from poor family and under compulsion they resorted to this
type of crime. On realisation of their mistake, they want to donate an
amount of ` 25,000/- each for some welfare fund.
9. Keeping the above discussion into view, FIR No.1000/2004
registered at police station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi against the
petitioner and emanating proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.
10. I find force in the submission of learned APP. Keeping the
submission of learned counsel for petitioners into view, I direct all the
petitioners to deposit an amount of ` 1.25 Lacs in favour of "Bar
Council of Delhi Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Account" within two
weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be placed on the record by the
petitioners.
11. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3201/2011 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
12. In view of above order, Criminal M.A. No.11358/2011 (stay)
renders infructuous and consequently stands disposed of.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 02, 2011/Mk
