Mukesh Gambhir vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2590 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   Crl. M. C. No.953/2011

                                          Date of Decision : 13.05.2011

Mukesh Gambhir                                     ..... Petitioner
                                  Through: Mr. V. Sharma, Adv.

                                    Versus

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.      ...... Respondents

Through: Mr. S. K. Tyagi, Adv. for complainant.

Mr. P. K. Bhalla, Adv.R-2

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? YES

V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of an FIR

245/2007, under Section 420 IPC registered by P.S.

Paharganj, Delhi. The ground for quashing the FIR is that

the petitioner has settled the dispute with the respondent

no.2/complainant and further that the Regional Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd., who is also under cloud in the said FIR has

also given his consent.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution's case is that the FIR 245/2007

was registered under Section 420 IPC by P.S. Paharganj,

Delhi on the complaint lodged by Mr. Anil Bansal, Director,

M/s Svavlambi Apparels/respondent no. 2. In the complaint,

it was stated that the respondent no. 2 is a limited company

and had taken a car loan vide agreement no.

LADEL00001639901 from the respondent no. 3/ICICI Bank

for purchase of a Maruti Esteem VXI car bearing registration

no. DL 9C J 0979. It is stated that as per the terms and

conditions of the loan agreement, the respondent no.

2/complainant was paying a monthly installment of

Rs.15,307/-. It is alleged that in the month of November and

December, 2005, the respondent no. 2 received a telephonic

call from the ICICI Bank that a cheque issued by the

respondent no. 2 for an amount of Rs.11,793/- has been

dishonoured. The respondent no. 2 noted the fact that the

cheque which was stated to have been dishonoured was for

an amount of Rs.11,793/- while as the EMI which was being

paid by him was Rs.15,307/-. The respondent no. 2 received

a letter dated 16.01.2006 from the respondent no. 3 advising

that a sum of Rs.12,014/- had fallen due and payable against

the car loan account. The respondent no. 2 in a bona fide

manner deposited certain installment with the respondent

no.3. It was detected during the course of the

correspondence by the respondent no. 2 that the loan

agreement to which the respondent no. 3 was making

reference was LUDEL00004441500 which was different from

the car loan agreement of the respondent no.2.

3. The respondent no. 2 through its Director approached the

respondent no. 3 and brought to their notice that a monthly

installment which was paid in order to liquidate the loan

amount is to the tune of Rs.15,307/- while as the respondent

no. 3 in its correspondence was all along talking about an

installment @ Rs.11,793/- and therefore, there is some

discrepancy. It transpired that the present petitioner, who is

also a Director of the respondent no.2 company had allegedly

forged a resolution dated 24.08.2005 authorizing him to take

a loan from the respondent no. 3 for purchasing a second

hand car and in order to show that a said loan was utilized by

him for purchase of Maruti Esteem VXI car bearing

registration no. DL 9C J 0979 against which the car loan had

been sanctioned by the respondent no. 3 in favour of the

respondent no.2. On account of this discrepancy the

respondent no. 2 lodged a report with P.S. Paharganj, Delhi

against the officials of the Bank as well as the present

petitioner who was allegedly a Director of the respondent no.2

company.

4. After investigation, the charge sheet is stated to have been

filed and the case is pending for trial. The civil cases were

also instituted between the respondent no.2 and the

respondent no 3 making present petitioner as a party. So far

as the civil cases are concerned, they are purported to have

been settled by the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no.

3 with the help of Mediation as it was a simple civil

transaction regarding the retrieval of the money. It is while

settling the said civil litigation i.e. two suits, one filed by the

respondent no. 2 against the respondent no. 3 and the other

filed by the respondent no. 3 against the respondent no. 2

making the present petitioner as a party that the parties have

resolved that they will also get the said FIR quashed and that

is why the present petition has been filed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

respondent as well as the learned APP for the State and have

gone through the record.

6. The learned APP has contested the prayer of the petitioner for

quashing of the FIR on the ground that merely because the

civil dispute between the respondent no. 2 and the

respondent no. 3 have been settled that should not be a

ground for quashing of an FIR for an offence of cheating in

which allegations regarding forgery of documents purported

to be the resolution of the company have been leveled against

the present petitioner. It has been contended by the learned

APP that the case under Section 420 IPC is compoundable

with the permission of the Court but in the instant case,

there are wider ramifications in the sense that officials of the

public institutions namely a bank which is purported to have

given a loan on the basis of a forged resolution to the present

petitioner which shows the prima facie complicity of the bank

officials also. The documents of the car, the person proving

to sell the car were not taken by the respondent no.2 and

therefore, the FIR may not be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the contrary stated

that since the matter has been settled amicably between the

parties, therefore, the FIR and the consequent proceedings

which are pending in the Court of the learned Elaka

Magistrate may be quashed. So far as the respondent no. 3

bank is concerned, it was stated that its officials may not be

summoned as an accused in the trial and subject to this they

have no objection if the FIR is quashed.

8. There is no doubt about the fact that an offence under

Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the

Court provided it does affects only two parties and is in the

nature of a civil dispute. But in a case where the offence of

cheating or forgery as alleged in the FIR is made out, it has a

wider ramification which not only have a deleterious effect on

day to day functioning of the bank but also on the moral

values of the people as it may send signals to the accused

that they can get away with impunity and therefore, the FIR

ought not to be quashed merely because the parties have

settled.

9. In the instant case, the present petitioner is one of the main

accused who has committed the offence of cheating with a

great deal of deliberation, in as much as there is a definite

allegation against him that he had forged a resolution of the

respondent no. 2 company on 24.08.2005, authorizing him to

take a loan. Further, he had the audacity of showing to have

utilized the said car loan to purchase the second hand car

which in itself was already purchased from the loan, having

been granted by the very same bank to the respondent no.2.

This shows the great deal of pre planning and deliberation on

his part to commit an offence of cheating in a calculated

manner. In case, the FIR's in offences of this nature are

quashed merely on the compromise of the parties concerned,

it will set not only a bad precedent but would also give

impetus to persons with such proclivities to commit the

offence with impunity.

10. For the above mentioned reasons, I feel that it is not a fit case

for quashing of the FIR 245/2007, under Section 420 IPC

registered by P.S. Paharganj, Delhi and the consequent

proceedings initiated on the basis of the said FIR merely

because parties have settled their civil disputes. I,

accordingly, dismiss the petition.

V.K. SHALI, J.

May 13, 2011 KP