Delhi High Court
Sh. Rishabh Khandelwal vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 1 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~3 & 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01.02.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 139/2024, CRL.M.A. 1171/2024
SH. RISHABH KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Ms. Somya
Chugh and Ms. Nishu, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with
Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu
Agarwal, Advocates with SI Jaipal
Singh, PS: Kotwali.
Mr. R. K. Tarun, Ms. Aditi
Shivadhatri and Mr. Vaibhav Rai
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023, CRL.M.A. 29130/2023
SH. RISHABH KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Ms. Somya
Chugh and Ms. Nishu, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP with
SI Jaipal Singh, PS: Kotwali.
Mr. R. K. Tarun, Ms. Aditi
Shivadhatri and Mr. Vaibhav Rai
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(CRL) 318/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1171/2024
1. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
W.P.(CRL.) 139/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023 Page 1 of 4 W
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has
been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0823/2023
under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at P.S.: Kotwali, Delhi and the
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, complainant/respondent
No.2, Mr. Rajiv Kumar alleged that on 25.09.2023 he was accompanied by
Rishabh Khandelwal (Petitioner) who had earlier come in contact with him,
at Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi for selling of the gold coins
owned by the complainant. The complainant had shown the said 06 coins of
gold of 100 gms each to shopkeeper Mr. Gupta, who assigned one of his
workers to get the purity of the gold checked. However, petitioner left the
spot after taking the said coins from the worker outside the shop after
assuring that the same could be handed over to respondent No.2. The
present FIR was accordingly registered on the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 and the petitioner was thereafter untreacable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, aged about
27 years, has clean past antecedents and the matter has been settled between
the parties in terms of MoU dated 05.01.2024. Further the petitioner has
compensated the complainant by returning 05 gold coins and paying an
amount towards 6th gold coin, as agreed between the parties. He further
submits that petitioner expresses remorse on such a conduct and the incident
had taken place under a misunderstanding. It is also contended that there is
no possibility of conviction of accused in view of the settlement between the
parties.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that a status report has been filed
on record and the factum of agreement between the parties has been verified.
W.P.(CRL.) 139/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023 Page 2 of 4 W
Respondent No. 2 is present in-person and submits that matter has been
accordingly settled with the petitioner and he has no further grievance
against the petitioner.
5. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which
cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR
may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no
generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is
required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and
consider the impact on the society. Reference may also be made to
judgement passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C.
1741/2021 titled as 'Sunil Tomar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.'
decided on 12.04.2022, wherein the proceedings under Section 406/420 IPC
were quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
6. In view of the statement of the complainant regarding settlement
between the parties and return of the disputed gold coins, no purpose shall be
served by keeping the proceedings pending. The conduct of trial in view of
the settlement between parties may be a futile exercise, as the prosecution
may not ultimately succeed or achieve any purpose. The fact that the
petitioner has expressed his remorse and has clean past antecedents also
needs to be kept in consideration. Keeping in view the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that technicalities
should not be allowed to stand and the continuity of proceedings in view of
settlement would be an abuse of process of court. Consequently, FIR No.
W.P.(CRL.) 139/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023 Page 3 of 4 W
0823/2023 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at P.S.: Kotwali, Delhi and
the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
The gold coins be accordingly released back to the owner against
receipt after due verification by the Police, in accordance with law.
W.P.(CRL) 139/2024 is accordingly disposed of. Pending application,
if any, also stands disposed of.
7. In view of the quashing of FIR, the BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023,
preferred on behalf of the petitioner has become infructuous and is
accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
A copy of this order be kept in BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
FEBRUARY 01, 2024/R
W.P.(CRL.) 139/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3581/2023 Page 4 of 4 W
