Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1781/2013
VIKAS ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur & Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocates
Through:
CRL.M.C. 1781/2013
VIKAS ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur & Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocates
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Azad
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Manager State Bank ofPatiala
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Azad
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Manager State Bank ofPatiala
CRL.M.C. 1886/2013
HIMANSHU ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Advocate
Through:
HIMANSHU ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijender Bhardwaj, Advocate
Through:
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Azad
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Manager State Bank ofPatiala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
10.05.2013 Crl.M.A.No.5537/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.1781/2013 (Exemption)
Crl.M.A.No.5839/2013 in Cri.M.C.No.1886/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 & 1886 of 2013 Page 1 I 2013:DHC:7360
Crl.M.A.No.5536/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.178112013 Crl.M.A.No.5838/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.1886/2013
The above-captioned two petitions arise out of FIR No.584/2004 under Section 406/419/420/467/468/4711120-B IPC registered at PS Ashok
Vihar, Delhi and quashing of the aforesaid FIR is sought in these petitions on the basis ofOne-Time Settlement of 1st April, 2013 (Annexure E). ·
Notice. Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State-respondent No.1 and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Branch
Manager, State Bank ofPatiala accepts notice on behalf ofBank-respondent
No.2. Branch Manager of Bank-Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and affirms the contents of One-Time Settlement (Annexure E) arrived at between petitioners Vikas and Himanshu and Bank and further submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or 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 ofthe 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 of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 &1886 of 2013 Page2 v ,...--·
'{ convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated"
Considering that the subject matter of FIR in question is of commercial nature therefore in view of the aforesaid One-Time Settlement arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.584/2004 under Section 406/419/420/467/468/4711120-B IPC registered at PS Ashok
Vihar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
With aforesaid observations, the petitions as well as the pending applications are accordingly disposed o£
MAY 10,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 &1886 of 2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3 J
Singh, PS Ashok Vihar and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Manager State Bank ofPatiala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
10.05.2013 Crl.M.A.No.5537/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.1781/2013 (Exemption)
Crl.M.A.No.5839/2013 in Cri.M.C.No.1886/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 & 1886 of 2013 Page 1 I 2013:DHC:7360
Crl.M.A.No.5536/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.178112013 Crl.M.A.No.5838/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.1886/2013
The above-captioned two petitions arise out of FIR No.584/2004 under Section 406/419/420/467/468/4711120-B IPC registered at PS Ashok
Vihar, Delhi and quashing of the aforesaid FIR is sought in these petitions on the basis ofOne-Time Settlement of 1st April, 2013 (Annexure E). ·
Notice. Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State-respondent No.1 and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Branch
Manager, State Bank ofPatiala accepts notice on behalf ofBank-respondent
No.2. Branch Manager of Bank-Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and affirms the contents of One-Time Settlement (Annexure E) arrived at between petitioners Vikas and Himanshu and Bank and further submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so these proceedings be brought to an end.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or 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 ofthe 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 of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 &1886 of 2013 Page2 v ,...--·
'{ convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated"
Considering that the subject matter of FIR in question is of commercial nature therefore in view of the aforesaid One-Time Settlement arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.584/2004 under Section 406/419/420/467/468/4711120-B IPC registered at PS Ashok
Vihar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.
With aforesaid observations, the petitions as well as the pending applications are accordingly disposed o£
MAY 10,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos. 1781 &1886 of 2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3 J
JUDGMENT