Delhi High Court
Rajni Khare vs State & Anr. on 19 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2930/2021, CRL.M.A. 18471/2021 & 8711/2024
RAJNI KHARE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Mr. Akshat
Gupta, Mr. Pranav Jain, Ms. Sakshi
Tikmany and Ms. Srishti Agarwal,
Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC with
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate with
SI Satish Bhati PS: OIA.
Mr. Akshai Malik, Mr. Akshay
Sehgal, Mr. Khawar Saleem and
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No. 0681/2021, under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at
P.S.: Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that disputes between the
parties have primarily arisen out of commercial loan transaction and have
been settled in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 02.11.2023. It is
also submitted that separate CRL.M.C. 5062/2023 was preferred on behalf of
co-accused Mokhan Rai Dayal, for quashing of proceedings, which have
been quashed vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. The payment, in terms of settlement agreement dated 02.11.2023,
is stated to have been made.
3. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
4. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 (through VC) have been identified by
SI Satish Bhati PS: Okhla Induatrial Area, Delhi. I have interacted with the
parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between
them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states
that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and
she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Petitioners in the present case seek 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.
6. The disputes between parties mainly relate to loan transaction. In view
of settlement between the parties, no purpose shall be served by keeping the
proceedings pending. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the continuity of
proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. Consequently, FIR No.
0681/2021, under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at P.S.: Okhla Industrial
Area, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 19, 2024/R
