Delhi High Court
Sewa Ram & Ors vs State & Anr on 10 September, 2014
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4123/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.14149/2014
SEWA RAM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. J. K. Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.0657/2014, registered at police station Narela under Section 420 IPC,
and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has
been settled between the parties. The aforesaid FIR came to be lodged
against the petitioners at the instance of the complainant Pradeep Kumar
Mangal, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 herein, making serious
allegations of cheating and forgery, along with conspiracy including, inter
alia, manipulation and tampering of records of the Agricultural Produce
Market Committee (APMC), Narela, Delhi with regard to the auctions that
had been carried out in connivance with the auctioneer Rohtas Bhardwaj,
who is also arrayed as petitioner No.4 before this Court. It is alleged that in
this way, the petitioners have sought to avoid liability to the tune of
Rs.31,19,446/-, which was the auction price that was to be paid for Paddy
purchased in the said auction by petitioners No.1, 2 and 3.
2. It is alleged that, with the connivance of petitioner No.4, the other
petitioners manipulated the records to show that the auction in question had,
in fact, been cancelled.
3. The parties are stated to have executed a Compromise Deed amongst
themselves on 31.07.2014. The Compromise Deed has also been annexed
to this petition. It records that the matter has been amicably settled between
the complainant and the accused / petitioners, and further that the material in
question, i.e., Paddy, has been received back by the complainant under the
invoices of petitioners 1 and 2; and that the complainant is satisfied with this
arrangement.
4. Issue notice.
Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts
notice. The complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2, is present in
person.
5. The Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Deepak identifies the parties.
The matter is stated to be under investigation.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the whole thing has
occurred due a misunderstanding, and that the complainant as well as the
petitioners 1 and 2 are respectable traders operating in the APMC Mandi
holding valid licenses; and further, on instructions from the petitioners, who
are present in Court today, submits that the petitioners are also willing to
pay any reasonable costs that may be directed by this Court keeping in mind
the overall circumstances of the matter.
7. Counsel for the State submits that there is an element of seriousness
in the nature of the complaint, which involves open auction of Paddy worth
more than Rs.31 lakhs, and where the involvement and connivance of
auctioneer is also alleged apart from manipulation of official records; and
looking to the fact that the complainant himself has settled the matter and is
no longer interested in supporting the matter, which is at the stage of
investigation; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these
proceedings. However, it would be appropriate if the petitioners are put to
heavy costs.
8. Consequently, and looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a
number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable
offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement
between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by
observing as under:
"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly
and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of
civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim
and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated."
And also in view of the fact the offence under Section 420 IPC, under
which, the present FIR has been registered, is compoundable with the
permission of the court, and also with the consent of the person cheated; I
consider it appropriate, on an overall consideration of the matter, to permit
the compounding, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.3 lakhs
with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and
Welfare Fund within two weeks from today.
9. Counsel for the petitioners states that the said amount shall be
deposited within the time granted. Let the same be done. Proof of payment
of costs be filed in the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter,
with a copy to the Investigating Officer.
10. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR
No.657/2014, registered at police station Narela under Section 420 IPC, and
all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
11. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.14149/2014, stands disposed
off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
dr
