Delhi High Court
Ompraksh Gupta vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 June, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 922/2020, CRL.M.As.7663/2020 & 7664/2020
OMPRAKSH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ved Pal Rana, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avinder Singh, ASC for
State
Mr. Amit Bajaj, Advocate for
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 22.06.2020
(by video-conference)
1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), prays for quashing of FIR No. 97/2020,
dated 13th February, 2020, registered at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, as well
as the proceedings following thereupon.
2. The FIR alleged that the petitioner had committed offences
punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Subsequently, Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were also added,
during the course of investigation.
3. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (complainant) are
relatives, albeit somewhat removed, Respondent No. 2 being the son
of the sister of the husband of the cousin sister of the petitioner.
4. A holistic reading of the FIR, dated 13th February, 2020, reveals
that the charge, therein, relates, essentially, to two parcels of land,
admeasuring 2 bighas and 2 bighas 10 biswas, located in Khasra Nos.
146 min and 147 in Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The complainant
(Respondent No. 2) alleged that he was the owner of the said parcel of
land of having come into ownership and possession thereof vide sale
deeds dated 14th January, 1998 and 31st July, 1998 respectively. The
petitioner, on the other hand, alleges the FIR, was seeking to claim
ownership, in respect of part of the land located in the aforesaid two
Khasras, on the ground of certain documents, including a general
power of attorney, receipt, affidavit, agreement to sell and Will which,
according to the allegations in the FIR, were forged and fabricated.
Disputing his signatures, as contained in the said documents, wherein
the petitioner was claiming title over part of the aforesaid two parcels
of land, the FIR alleges that the petitioner had committed theft,
criminal breach of trust and forgery, so as to usurp the land of
Respondent No. 2.
5. Significantly, however, the FIR admits that the originals, of the
registered sale deeds, dated 14th January, 1998 and 31st July, 1998,
whereunder Respondent No. 2 claimed ownership of the aforesaid two
parcels of land, were in the possession of the petitioner, though it is
sought to be alleged that the petitioner had stolen the said documents.
6. Admittedly, no chargesheet has been filed, consequent to
registration of the aforesaid FIR.
7. Apparently, the petitioner also filed a civil suit, presently
pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rohini, claiming
ownership over the disputed land, contained in the aforesaid Khasras
nos. 146 min and 147, claiming ownership of the land under cover of
the allegedly fabricated documents all of which were dated 3 rd March,
2000.
8. Exactly one month and one day from the date of registration of
FIR, dated 13th February, 2020, the petitioner and Respondent No.2
arrived at a settlement, which was reduced into writing, vide
settlement deed dated 14th March, 2020. The settlement deed
acknowledges the fact that the FIR had been filed, by Respondent No.
2 against the petitioner, as Respondent No. 2 was disputing the
genuineness of the aforesaid documents, dated 3rd March, 2000,
whereunder the petitioner was claiming ownership over the disputed
land.
9. The settlement deed contains as many as eleven terms of
settlement, of which Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 read thus:
"1. That the first party is registered owner in respect of 2
Bigha + 2 Bighas 10 Biswas total 4 Bighas 10 Biswas (4500
sq.yds.). The second party is registered owner of 1 Bigha 18
Biswas + 1 Bigha 18 Biswas total 3 Bighas 16,Biswas (3800
sq.yds).
2. That it is agreed between both the parties that both the
parties shall remain owner of the land in the manner above
stated.
3. It is agreed by both the party by party no. 2 has given
up its claim on the basis of documents dated 03.03.2000 and
in this respect, the claim of party no. 2 has already been
settled amicably with the intervention of Sh. Devender Yadav
and now both the parties are satisfied on this issue.
4. That the second party shall not claim right, title,
interest and claim on the basis of the documents dated
03.03.2000 stated above, they have not used and shall not use
these documents for any purpose in respect of the land
mentioned therein, these documents shall be considered to be
null and void for all intents and purposes and further those
documents and all copies thereof shall be destroyed in the
presence of respectable to the satisfaction of both the parties."
Pursuant to the aforesaid, the parties have agreed, by the settlement
deed, to abide by the afore-extracted terms of settlement. It is also
recited, in the settlement deed, that the settlement was arrived at,
between the parties, with their mutual consent, will and wish and
without any force, fraud or coercion, and that all grievances between
the parties stand settled. Apparently, the settlement was possible
owing to the timely intervention of one Devender Yadav, who acted as
a mediator between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2.
10. Consequent on the aforesaid settlement, the present petition has
been filed, seeking quashing of the impugned FIR No. 97/2020, as
well as all proceedings, consequent thereupon.
11. Mr. Ved Pal Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Amit Bajaj, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have been
heard, as also Mr. Avinder Singh, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State-Respondent No. 1.
12. Both learned counsel, arguing for the petitioner and the
Respondent No.2, have submitted that they wish to settle the dispute
and bring, to a close, the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 97/2020,
dated 13th February, 2020.
13. Mr. Avinder Singh, learned ASC for the State-Respondent No.
1, opposes the prayer. He places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat 1, to submit
that, in view of the allegations therein, the present FIR cannot be
quashed merely because the parties have, inter se, settled their
disputes. Especial reliance was placed, by Mr Avinder Singh, on para
18 of the said decision, which reads thus:
"18. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would
demonstrate, is not clearly one involving a private dispute
over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The
case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication
of documents, utilisation of fabricated documents to
effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities
and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land
on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the
allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident
that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a
vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or
interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be
merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal
interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances,
the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash
the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467,
468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code."
(2017) 9 SCC 641
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, on the
other hand, that the facts, in Parbatbhai Aahir1 were clearly
distinguishable from those of the present. For this purpose, he has
drawn my attention to paras 7, 8 and 17 of the report, in Parbatbhai
Aahir1, which read thus:
"7. On behalf of the prosecution, the Public Prosecutor
opposed the application for quashing on two grounds. First,
the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued
against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Second, the appellants had criminal
antecedents, the details of which are contained in the
following chart submitted before the High Court:
Par 1. Parbatbhai (a) City "A" P-1
BhimsinbhaiDivision Jamnagar
Karmur CR No. 1-251 of
2. Ramde Bhikha (a) City "A" P-2
Nanadaniya Division Jamnagar
CR No. 1-135 of
(b) City "A"
Division Jamnagar 2
CR No. 1-105 of
(c) City "A"
Division Jamnagar 2
CR No. 1-251 of
3. Hasmukh (a) Gandhinagar M- P-3
Hansrajbhai Patel Case No.1 of 2014
(b) City "A"
Division Jamnagar
CR No.1-105 of
4. Indravadan (a) City "A" Division P-6
Dineshbhai Patel Jamnagar CR No.1-
105 of 2016
5. Jitendra (a) City "A" Division P-7
Somabhai Modi Jamnagar CR No.1-
105 of 2016
(b) Odhav Police
Station
CR No.1-180 of 2015
6. Vishnu alias (a) Gandhinagar M-
Toto Rabari Case No.1 of 2014
(b) City "A" Division
Jamnagar CR No.1-
105 of 2016
8. The High Court observed that it had been given "a fair
idea" about the modus operandi adopted by the appellants for
grabbing the land, in the course of which they had opened
bogus bank accounts. The High Court held that the case
involves extortion, forgery and conspiracy and all the
appellants have acted as a team. Hence, in the view of the
High Court, it was not in the interest of society at large to
accept the settlement and quash the FIR. The High Court held
that the charges are of a serious nature and the activities of the
appellants render them a potential threat to society. On this
ground, the prayer to quash the first information report has
been rejected.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been
laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view
that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the
application for quashing the first information report in the
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has
adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a
bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 to quash the FIR would subserve or secure the
ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court.
The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants
had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants
have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has
been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High
Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been
followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of
land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to
have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening
bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the
High Court observed that in a case involving extortion,
forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as
a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on
the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the
complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court."
15. Mr. Rana submits that, unlike the facts which obtained in
Parbatbhai Aahir1, his client has no criminal antecedents and there is
no allegation of extortion against him. No prior transgression of the
law is alleged, in the FIR, against the petitioner. He submits that the
present dispute is essentially between two members of the same
family, and involved a dispute of ownership, with his client having
claimed ownership on the basis of a particular set of documents, the
veracity whereof was questioned by Respondent No. 2. He also points
out that unlike the situation which obtained in Parbatbhai Aahir1, his
client has never absconded, and has cooperated with the investigation.
16. Para 18 of the report in Parbatbhai Aahir1, Mr. Rana would
seek to submit, cannot be read in isolation but has to be read in the
lights of the facts which obtained before the Supreme Court and in the
light whereof the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High
Court. He presses into particular service, in this regard, para 17 of the
judgment reproduced hereinabove.
17. Mr. Rana also draws my attention to the decisions, on which
reliance was placed in Parbatbhai Aahir1, especially Narinder Singh
v. State of Punjab2, in which cases, where settlement was arrived at,
immediately after registration of the FIR, or very shortly thereafter,
and where a chargesheet had yet to be filed, were held to be deserving
of a liberal approach,.
18. I have heard learned counsel at length, and addressed myself to
the various issues urged at the Bar.
19. In my considered opinion, it may not be possible to analogise
the present case with Parbatbhai Aahir1 as Mr. Avinder Singh would
seek to urge. The Supreme Court has, times without number,
emphasized that enunciations of law, by it, are not to be treated as
Euclid's theorems, and have to be appreciated in the light of fact-
situation in which they were rendered. [Refer U.O.I. v. Major
Bahadur Singh3, Haryana Financial Corpn v Jagdamba Oil Mills 4
and, most recently, Anuj Jain v Axis Bank Ltd 5].
20. Parbatbhai Aahir1 is clearly distinguishable from the case at
hand.
21. Paras 17 and 18 of the decision in Parbatbhai Aahir1, if read
2014 (6) SCC 466
(2006) 1 SCC 368
(2002) 3 SCC 496
2020 SCC OnLine SC 237
conjointly, indicate that, in that case, the High Court had relied, inter
alia, on the fact that the accused, before it, were absconders, habitual
offenders, and had criminal antecedents, having as many as six cases
already pending against them. Besides, there were, additionally,
allegations of extortion, against the accused in that case, which are
absent in the present case.
22. It was also alleged that, as part of the modus operandi being
followed by the accused, they had opened bogus bank accounts and
were acting as a team. No such allegation has been levelled against the
petitioner.
23. No doubt, para 18 of the report, in Parbatbhai Aahir1, if read in
isolation, seems to support the stand adopted by Mr. Avinder Singh.
However, seen in juxtaposition with the other paragraphs of the
decision, it would be clear that the present case is fundamentally
different from Parbatbhai Aahir1. The petitioner has no criminal
antecedents. No allegation of extortion has been leveled against him.
He is not an absconder and has, in fact, cooperated with the
investigation. There is no allegation that he has opened any bogus
bank accounts. It is not, therefore, as though the petitioner is a
professional land-grabber.
24. Moreover, the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 are close
relatives, and the controversy essentially arose from around a dispute,
regarding the veracity of the documents, whereunder the petitioner
was claiming ownership over the lands forming subject matter of the
allegations in the FIR. The petitioner has also filed a civil suit,
pressing his rights and title over the lands, which is stated to be
presently pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rohini,
though Mr. Rana points out that he has already moved an application
for withdrawal of the said suit, so that a quietus could be achieved in
the matter.
25. A reading of the terms of settlement discloses that the petitioner
and the Respondent No. 2 have reconciled, between themselves,
regarding ownership of the parcels of land in the aforesaid two
Khasras. Serial Nos. 1 to 4 of the terms of settlement clearly indicate
that Respondent No. 2 is to be regarded, hereinafter, as the registered
owner, in respect of the total area of 4 bighas and 10 biswas (which
would include the area forming subject matter of the impugned FIR).
The petitioner, on the other hand, is the registered owner of a total
area of 3 bighas 16 biswas.
26. Both parties have agreed to remain owners of the said areas, and
the petitioner has given up his claim, based on the documents, dated
3rd March, 2000 (the veracity whereof was disputed in the FIR) to the
lands contained in Khasras 146 min and 147. The petitioner has also
disclaimed all right, title, interest and claims, on the basis of the said
documents, and has undertaken to destroy the said documents,
forthwith, and not to use them for any purpose.
27. Clearly, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 desire to bury the
hatchet.
28. It is in the backdrop of this settlement, that Respondent No.2
has undertaken to withdraw FIR No. 97/2020, dated 13th February,
2020, and to make a statement, to the said effect, before this Court.
29. In my view, seen as a whole, nothing further survives for
adjudication or trial in the FIR No. 97/2020, dated 13th February,
2020. Allowing the FIR to proceed to trial, in the above
circumstances, would be a clear exercise in futility, as well as an
irreversible drain on valuable court time. The entire dispute was
between close relatives, in relation to certain documents, which,
according to the petitioner, were genuine, and according to
Respondent No. 2, were not. This matter has been settled between the
parties, who have amicably agreed to bring an end to the dispute. No
meaningful outcome could ensue, by flogging a dead horse.
30. Last, but not least, the settlement, in the present case, has been
arrived at within one month of the registration of the FIR, before any
chargesheet has been filed or any substantial progress, in the
investigation, has taken place.
31. The facts of the present case, in my view, are completely
different from those obtaining in Parbatbhai Aahir1. The present case
cannot be said to involve societal interest, or prosecuting of any
serious crime, as would justify the rejection of the present petition,
despite the settlement between the parties. The dictum in Narinder
Singh2, too, would, therefore, require this Court to adopt a liberal
approach in the matter.
32. In view of the above discussions, the petition is allowed. The
FIR No. 97/2020, dated 13th February, 2020 registered at P.S.
Swaroop Nagar, as well as all proceedings following thereupon, are
quashed and set aside.
33. Needless to say, the parties shall remain strictly bound by the
terms of the aforesaid settlement, dated 14th March, 2020, which
includes, inter alia, an undertaking, by the petitioner, to destroy the
documents, dated 3rd March, 2000, on the basis whereof the petitioner
was claiming title to the disputed land.
34. CRL.M.As.7663/2020 and 7664/2020 also stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
JUNE 22, 2020
dsn
