Delhi High Court
Vijay Singh vs State & Ors. on 20 August, 2018
$~23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 20th August, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2766/2016
VIJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Sarna, Ms. Mamta
Sarna & Mr. Pradeep Kataria,
Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State with SI Sanjeet Singh, PS
Rajouri Garden.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) to seek quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.
804/2006 under Sections 420/511/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) of police station Rajouri Garden, primarily on the basis of
settlement of the dispute with the third respondent, it being
accompanied amongst others by an affidavit of Paramjeet Singh,
director of the third respondent (company), he having submitted his no
objection to the prayer in the petition in terms, inter alia, of he having
been authorized by the resolution dated 18.05.2016 of the board of
directors of the said company. On being put to notice, the third
respondent appeared and the said authorized representative also
submitted copy of another board resolution dated 02.08.2016 in terms
of which Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Sr. Manager-Commercial of the
third respondent company has been given the authority to tender a
statement on behalf of the company and the authorized director. The
petition is also accompanied by a no-objection given by the Chief
Manager of Indian Overseas Bank (the second respondent) to the
prayer made in the petition, the FIR having been lodged on the
complaint of the said bank. The State has filed its response by status
report dated 22.01.2018.
2. A perusal of the documents brought before the Court would
reveal that the third respondent was maintaining an account with the
second respondent bank during the relevant period. The petitioner
herein had statedly approached the said bank on 08.08.2006 with a
cheque requisition slip for issuance of a cheque book against the said
account. The said cheque requisition slip, upon scrutiny, was found to
be forged and this fact has been confirmed by the investigation that
followed the registration of the FIR at the instance of the Chief
Manager of the bank.
3. From the facts and circumstances brought out in the charge-
sheet, it is clear that the case against the petitioner, prima facie, is that
he had dishonestly and fraudulently made an attempt to obtain from
the bank cheque book against the account of the third respondent with
which he had no connection on the basis of a forged and fabricated
cheque book requisition slip. The case, from this perspective, is not
one merely of a private dispute. A bank in the service of public at
large was also attempted to be cheated by the aforesaid act of
commission on basis of document which was fabricated valuable
security. The gravity of offences alleged is such that this Court does
not find it a fit case where the inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. should be exercised [see Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641].
4. The petition is, thus, dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 20, 2018
nk
