Delhi High Court
Pawan Gupta vs State Of Nct Delhi & Ors on 23 August, 2018
$~9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4927/2015
PAWAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Satpal
Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State
Mr. Siddharth Mehta, Adv. for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing prosecution in the criminal case in the
court of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of a report under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC)
submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first information
report (FIR) no.822/2005 of police station Prashant Vihar. By order
dated 13.08.2012, charges were framed putting him on trial for the
offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511, Sections
471, 474, 419 and 381 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case
thereafter has been at the stage of evidence for prosecution.
2. The present petition has been moved invoking the inherent
power of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC to seek quashing of the
abovesaid criminal case on the ground the matter had been
"compromised" by him with the second and third respondents.
3. While the second and third respondents through counsel agree
that the dispute has been settled with the petitioner, the prayer in the
petition is resisted by the first respondent / State placing reliance on
Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others
v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641.
4. Having heard all sides and having gone through the record, this
court finds that the gravamen of the charges framed against the
petitioner in the criminal case primarily is that he was an employee of
Kundan Edible Oil Mills, a sister concern of Kundan Rice Mill in
which the second respondent was the Managing Director, the third
respondent being its Chief Financial Officer at the relevant point of
time. It is stated that the petitioner in his capacity as an employee
under the said respondents had dishonestly removed a cheque leaf of
the said entity against its bank account with HDFC bank, and the said
cheque leaf having been forged and fabricated so as to purport to be a
cheque issued in the sum of Rs.6 Lakh was presented in the bank for
obtaining payment there-against. The cheque, upon presentation and
scrutiny, was found to be forged and fabricated and this fact having
been brought to light, complaint was lodged leading to the registration
of the said FIR. During the investigation, the petitioner statedly was
unable to account for possession of the cheque which was forged,
grave suspicion arising being that he knowing full well that it was a
forged instrument had attempted to use it to commit the offence of
cheating by presenting it dishonestly to receive value there-against
from the bank.
5. This court agrees with the submission of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that the facts of the case, as noted above, render it
one beyond the dispute that is "private in nature". It involves serious
economic offences which concern not only the entity against the
account of which the forged cheque was attempted to be encashed but
also the bank where the account was maintained. Having regard to the
spirit of the law laid down by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), this can hardly be said to
be a case meriting exercise of the inherent power of this court to bring
an end to the prosecution.
6. The rulings in Jagdish Chanana and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
and Anr., (2008) 15 SCC 704 and Anil Jain and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr., (2015) 15 SCC 707 relied upon by the petitioner do
not assist him. The short order in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra)
does not indicate the background facts against which the quashing of
the criminal proceedings was permitted. The fact that the order of the
Supreme Court itself says that the dispute was "purely personal in
nature" and arising out of "commercial transactions" brings out the
dis-similarity. Similar is the factual matrix of Anil Jain (supra).
7. The petition is thus dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 23, 2018/yg
