Kranta Aakash @ Prakash Kumar vs The State & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 51 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CRIMINAL M.C. NO.3015 OF 2012

                                        Decided on : 4th January , 2013

KRANTA AAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR          ...... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate.

                         Versus

THE STATE & ANR.                                    ...... Respondents
              Through:            Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

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

No.60/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station

Tuglak Road.

2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the petitioner

and respondent No.2/complainant have arrived at a compromise as a

consequence of which the petitioner is purported to have paid a sum of

`41,000/- to respondent No.2 vide demand draft No.001084 dated

25.8.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Janpath, New Delhi.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was

received from Munender Singh, s/o Sh. Ram Swroop Singh, r/o Village

Ruppra, Post Office Jaitpur, District Agra (U.P.) that on 20.6.2012,

accused Prakash Kumar @ Akash Kumar, who claimed himself to be an

employee of Indigo Air Lines, came to shop No.17-B, Khan Market, New

Delhi with the name of Kranta Aakash and offered membership of Indigo

Air Lines to the owner of "Dristi Optical" and received a cheque bearing

No.0159110, HDFC Bank, Khan Market for an amount of `1,000/- and

then changed the value of the said cheque, both in figure and words, to

`41,000/- by prefixing digit „4‟ before „1,000/-„ and „forty‟ before „one

thousand only‟ and withdrew an amount of `41,000/- from HDFC Bank,

Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. Hence, the aforesaid FIR was

registered. During the course of investigation, the address of the mobile

number 8802559502, which was mentioned on the visiting card provided

by the accused to the shop owner, was ascertained as K-11, South Patel

Nagar, New Delhi. The above address was got verified but was found to

be fake. On 8.7.2012, an information was received from Police Station

Karol Bagh that a person, namely, Prakash Kumar @ Akash Kumar, s/o

Subodh Kumar, r/o D-15, Pandav Nagar, Delhi was arrested in FIR

No.114/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police

Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, who disclosed his involvement in Khan

Market cheque fraud case of 20.6.2012. The accused Prakash Kumar @

Akash Kumar was interrogated in Tihar Jail where he was in judicial

custody in FIR No.114/2012 where he disclosed that on 20.6.2012, he

went to shop No.17-B, Khan Market and received a cheque of `1,000/-

from the accountant of the shop and changed the value of that cheque to

`41,000/- and withdrew the said amount from HDFC Bank, Defence

Colony, New Delhi. The accused/petitioner was formally arrested on

17.7.2012 and produced before the court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Metropolitan

Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. The specimen signature and

handwriting of the petitioner was obtained, who refused to join TIP. On

19.7.2012, he was produced in the court after one day police remand and

was sent to judicial custody. The petitioner is stated to be previously

involved in FIR No.109/2011, under Section 420/468/471 IPC, registered

at Police Station Kamla Market, FIR No.7/2012, under Section

420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Parliament Street, FIR

No.56/2012, under Sections 419/420/467/471 IPC, registered at Police

Station Barakhamba Road and FIR No.114/2012, under Sections

420/467/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh. The

accused is stated to be still in judicial custody. The investigations have

not been finally concluded and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. The

present petition has been filed with a view to quash the aforesaid FIR on

the basis of purported compromise having been arrived at between the

petitioner and the respondent No.2 through Vikash Kumar, brother of the

present petitioner, who is claiming himself to be conversant with the facts

of the case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned counsel for the respondent. The main contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that as the compromise has been arrived at

between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 as a consequence of

which an amount of `41,000/-, which is purported to have been

withdrawn by the present petitioner from the bank account of the

respondent No.2, has been paid to him by way of a draft and, therefore,

the dispute having been settled, the present FIR may be quashed as no

useful purpose would be served by keeping the same pending. In support

of his contention, he has placed reliance on three case titled Abhipra

Commodity Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi

& Anr.; 2012 (2) JCC 1115; Deepa Sharma & Anr. vs. State & Anr.;

2012 (3) JCC 1776 and Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &

Anr.; AIR 2008 SC 1968.

5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the quashing of the

aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings on the ground that the case

which has been registered against the petitioner is not only for an offence

of cheating under Section 420 IPC but also for forging a document and

using the forged document as genuine. Therefore, it has been contended

by him that the petitioner does not deserve sympathy of this court in

getting the aforesaid FIR quashed as it is not a case which by any set of

imagination can be said to be of civil nature or a dispute of personal

nature because the petitioner had forged a document and thereafter used

the forged document as genuine. The learned counsel for the State has

placed reliance on a case titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.;

2012 X AD (S.C.) 37 wherein the Apex Court has examined the entire

case law with regard to the quashing of the FIR and compounding the

offences and thereafter came to the conclusion that compounding of an

offence is different than the quashing of the FIR and the power of

quashing of an FIR in a non-compoundable offence is an inherent power

with the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has to be exercised on

certain set principles. In this regard, it has observed that Section 482

Cr.P.C., by its very language, suggests that it saves the inherent power of

the High Court which it has by virtue of it being the superior court to

prevent abuse of the processes of any court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice. It has also been observed that this power has to be

exercised depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and no

straight jacket formula regulating the exercise of this inherent power can

be laid down. In this regard, it has also taken note of the fact that the

court may quash criminal proceedings having regard to the fact that

dispute between the offender and the victim is settled although the

offences are not compoundable by observing that continuation of criminal

proceedings may be an exercise in futility. It has also noted the fact that

crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in

wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of the

society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the

victim have settled the dispute amicably or the victim has been paid

compensation. It is in this background, the court has observed that the

serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity or other offences of mental

depravity or offence under Prevention of Corruption Act are not

permitted to be compounded meaning thereby that the Apex Court has

put its seal of approval that the exercise of power laid down under

Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding or even for quashing must be

exercised to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent the abuse of the

processes of any court and this fact has to be ascertained by the court

from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. On the basis of this

pronouncement, the leaned APP has vehemently opposed the quashing of

the aforesaid FIR.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective

sides and have gone through the record. The present petition is based on

the very fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.2, who is the

complainant, have settled their disputes as a consequence of which the

petitioner has agreed to pay or has paid a sum of `41,000/- to the

respondent No.2 by way of a demand draft drawn on HDFC Bank.

However, in my view, merely because the demand draft for a sum of

`41,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, does not

form a ground for quashing of the FIR because the dispute between the

petitioner and the respondent No.2, by any set of imagination cannot be

said to be either a civil dispute arising out of some commercial

transaction or a dispute personal in nature. I would have said that yes, the

dispute is of a civil nature if it was a simple case of taking the money and

then misappropriating it or taking the money by misrepresentation which

would have meant, in other words, had it been only a case of cheating or

a breach of trust or a criminal misappropriation, one could have perhaps

considered that yes, it falls within the parameters of the offences wherein

the dispute having been settled, the court should permit the parties to

compound the offence and quash the FIR but that is not the position in the

instant case. The fact of the case shows that the petitioner had gone to a

shop in Khan Market, which is admittedly a posh area, and represented to

the petitioner that he is an employee of Indigo Air Lines and that he

would get membership of the said airlines to the respondent

No.2/complainant and in this regard, he obtained a cheque for a sum of

`1,000/- from him. After having obtained the said cheque, the petitioner

manipulated the same and added the number/word „four‟ to the same,

both in words as well as in digit, and enchashed a sum of `41,000/- from

his account meaning thereby that the petitioner had not only forged a

document but had also used the said forged document as genuine in

withdrawing the amount from the account of the complainant. This

clearly shows a criminal proclivity of a man. The first offender can never

have the courage of going to such an extent of forging a cheque by

manipulating and then withdrawing money on it. It seems that the

petitioner must have been doing this earlier also and it is only now that he

has been caught. Such like persons, if they are given discretion of the

court in quashing the FIR, I think, it will not be for securing the ends of

justice or for stopping the abuse of the processes of court on the contrary,

it will be only giving impetus not only to the petitioner but to other such

like-minded persons that they can get away by committing serious

offences of the nature which the petitioner has committed.

7. I have considered the cases on which the petitioner has relied upon

including the judgment of the Apex Court and in all such cases, the court

has formed a definite opinion that the dispute between the parties was

more or less emanating either from a commercial transaction or was a

dispute of a personal nature while as said tentacles were absent in the

instant case. I, therefore, feel that having regard to the facts of the case

and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), I

am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and

quash the FIR in question.

8. The petition is totally misconceived and the same deserves to be

dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JANUARY 04, 2013 'AA'