Full Text
Translation output
1^. , HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2513/2013 & Crl.M.A. 9748/2013
ANIL HADA
STATE &ORS.
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P.
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 2513/2013 & Crl.M.A. 9748/2013
ANIL HADA
STATE &ORS.
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P.
Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Abhishek Kumar Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with
Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Directorfor DDA-respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Abhishek Kumar Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with
Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Directorfor DDA-respondent No.2
CRL.M.C. 2514/2013 & Crl.M.A.9750/2013
GAUTAMHADA
Through:
GAUTAMHADA
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P.
Sharma, Advocates Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor forrespondent- State with SI Abhishek Kumar
Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant
Director forDDA-respondent No.2 CrlMC. 2513&2514of2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:6926
Through:
Petitioner Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P.
Sharma, Advocates Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional
Public Prosecutor forrespondent- State with SI Abhishek Kumar
Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant
Director forDDA-respondent No.2 CrlMC. 2513&2514of2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:6926
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
30.07.2013 In the above captioned two petitions quashing ofFIR No.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered at P.S.Kotla
Mubarakpur, Delhi is sought on the ground that the 50% ofthe unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim of respondent-DDA by the petitioner in this case which was to be paid in respect ofplot No.A-159 and A-160 in New Friends Colony, New Delhi has been deposited and so, these two properties have been converted from leasehold to freehold and the conveyance deed has been already executed and so, no offence is made out.
Upon notice, Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate, appears on behalf of
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, counsel for Respondent-DDA, and submits that instructions from Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Director, DDA, that
50% of unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim of respondent-DDA in respect of aforesaid subject plots has been already deposited by petitioners and conveyance deed in respect of leased properties has been executed. .
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of
CrlMC. 2513 &2514 of2013 ^ such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
Since the commercial dispute, which is the subject matter ofFIR in question, no longer survives as petitioners have nov^ paid 50% of unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim ofrespondent-DDA, therefore, this Court finds that continuance ofthe proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question qua petitioners would be an exercise in futility.
Consequently, these two petitions are allowed and FIR No.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered at P.S.Kotla
Mubarakpur, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners AnilHada and Gautam Hada only.
These two petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge JULY 30, 2013 Crl.M.C. 2513 &2514 of2013 ^
30.07.2013 In the above captioned two petitions quashing ofFIR No.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered at P.S.Kotla
Mubarakpur, Delhi is sought on the ground that the 50% ofthe unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim of respondent-DDA by the petitioner in this case which was to be paid in respect ofplot No.A-159 and A-160 in New Friends Colony, New Delhi has been deposited and so, these two properties have been converted from leasehold to freehold and the conveyance deed has been already executed and so, no offence is made out.
Upon notice, Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate, appears on behalf of
Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, counsel for Respondent-DDA, and submits that instructions from Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Director, DDA, that
50% of unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim of respondent-DDA in respect of aforesaid subject plots has been already deposited by petitioners and conveyance deed in respect of leased properties has been executed. .
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain ojfences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of
CrlMC. 2513 &2514 of2013 ^ such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."
Since the commercial dispute, which is the subject matter ofFIR in question, no longer survives as petitioners have nov^ paid 50% of unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim ofrespondent-DDA, therefore, this Court finds that continuance ofthe proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question qua petitioners would be an exercise in futility.
Consequently, these two petitions are allowed and FIR No.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered at P.S.Kotla
Mubarakpur, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners AnilHada and Gautam Hada only.
These two petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge JULY 30, 2013 Crl.M.C. 2513 &2514 of2013 ^
JUDGMENT