Delhi High Court
C Natesan & Ors. vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 August, 2018
$~24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 20th August, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 3357/2016 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 14227-28/2016
C NATESAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Mansukhani, Adv.
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State with SI Gulshan Yadav,
EOW.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have approached this Court by the petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to seek
quashing of the proceedings in the criminal case arising out of FIR
No. 186/1999 under Sections 406/420/120B of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) of police station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi which is
pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East,
New Delhi, primarily on the grounds that they had settled the dispute
with the second respondent and were ready and willing to settle the
dispute with the other victims of the crime alleged in the case.
Though, from the documents, it does appear that the claim of the
second respondent has been satisfied by payment of the amount to the
extent of which she had suffered wrongful loss, the status report
accompanied by documents submitted by the State reveals that the
case involves not only the second respondent as the victim but also
672 other investors who were similarly cheated. The contention of the
petitioners is that the third petitioner (company) is presently under
liquidation, in proceedings pending before Madras High Court. Be
that as it may, it is for the petitioners to approach the other victims to
satisfy their respective claims. The readiness and willingness to settle
by itself does not mean the proceedings before the trial court should be
stalled or quashed.
2. Given the fact that the case involves economic offences vis-à-
vis such large number of victims, it cannot be said that it is one with
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute between two
private individuals. Therefore, this Court does not find it to be a case
where the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be
exercised. [see Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC
641]
3. More than the above, there is one more reason why this petition
ought not be entertained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
placed before the court, copy of the order dated 13.10.2015 whereby
similar petition moved earlier by the same very set of petitioners
(Crl.M.C. 369/2015) had been dismissed by a learned single Judge of
this Court. On being asked, the counsel representing the petitioners
submitted that he was not aware of such earlier petition or its result
and, therefore, no reference was made to the said earlier endeavour to
have the proceedings quashed. Suppression of such material facts in
the petition also impels this Court to dismiss the petition at hand.
Ordered accordingly.
4. The pending applications are rendered infructuous and are
disposed of accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 20, 2018
nk
