Delhi High Court
Neeraj Saraf vs State & Ors. on 2 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4116/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 2nd February, 2012
NEERAJ SARAF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Sabharwal, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP
with SI Mahender Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of FIR No. 53/2010, registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road, under
section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on account of settlement.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide aforesaid FIR
case under section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered on the
complaint of Respondent No. 2 Ms. Maninder Kaur Singh S/o Shri
Chandeep Singh.
3. He further submits that Respondent No. 2 has amicably settled all
issues qua the aforesaid FIR and the matter has been resolved between the
parties. He also submits that the Petitioner has paid an amount of
Rs.60,90,803/- to respondent no. 2 by way of two Demand Drafts bearing
No. 439836 dated 10.01.2012 and 349931 dated 12.11.2011 drawn on
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and HDFC Bank
respectively. The Demand Drafts have been accepted by Respondent No. 2
without any protest.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the Petitioner has
paid the entire due amount to Respondent No. 2, she has no objection if the
aforesaid FIR is quashed.
5. Respondent No. 2 is present in person with her husband
Mr. Chandeep Singh and IO of the case, SI Mahender has identified Mrs.
Maninder Kaur Singh as Respondent No. 2.
6. Respondent No. 2 has submitted that she has received the entire
amount of Rs.60,90,803/- and therefore she is not interested in pursuing the
case any further and she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.
7. On the other hand, ld. APP submits that charge-sheet has been filed in
this case and cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court, however, the
charges are yet to be framed. Learned APP further submits that if this Court
is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed on the petitioner
as the government machinery has been pressed into and precious time of the
Court has been consumed.
8. Keeping in view the statement of Respondent No. 2 that she has
received the entire amount from the Petitioner No. 1 and she is not interested
in pursuing the case and further has no objection if the FIR is quashed, in the
interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 53/2010, P.S. Barakhamba Road with
emanating proceedings thereto.
9. However, I found force in the submission of learned APP that in this
process precious court time has been consumed. The petitioner is a man of
means who has given nearly Rs.61 Lacs to the Respondent herein. He has
one Mall in Panipat, therefore he is man of means. The Petitioner is a
British citizen, his father was the Managing Director of the Petitioner's
Company and the petitioner himself is a Director of the company. As per
the allegations in the FIR, they have cheated the respondent. Therefore,
while quashing the FIR, I impose a cost of Rs.2 Lacs on the petitioner to be
paid in favour of "Bar Council of Delhi (Indigent & Disabled Lawyers
Account)" within 6 weeks from today. Proof of the same shall also be
placed on record.
10. The Crl. M.C. 4116/2011 is allowed on the above terms.
11. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl. M.A. 19174/2011 (Stay)
becomes infructuous and disposed of as such.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2012
Awanish/jg
