Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3004/2011 & Crl.M.A. 10573/2011,12968/2011, 2268/2013
SHYAM GARG & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Sugam Suri & Mr. Ashish Dhingra, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Roy, Adv. for Petitioner No.l
CRL.M.C. 3004/2011 & Crl.M.A. 10573/2011,12968/2011, 2268/2013
SHYAM GARG & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Sugam Suri & Mr. Ashish Dhingra, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Roy, Adv. for Petitioner No.l
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State SI Ram Singh, P.S. New Friends Colony
Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State SI Ram Singh, P.S. New Friends Colony
CRL.M.C. 836/2012
VIVEK KUMAR GARG & ANR Petitioner
Through Mr. Prashant Shukla & Mr. J.P. Malviya, Adv.
VIVEK KUMAR GARG & ANR Petitioner
Through Mr. Prashant Shukla & Mr. J.P. Malviya, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondent
ThroughMs. Ranjana Roy, Adv. for Respondent No.2
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State SI Ram Singh, P.S. New Friends Colony
ThroughMs. Ranjana Roy, Adv. for Respondent No.2
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State SI Ram Singh, P.S. New Friends Colony
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
02.05.2013 These two petitions have been preferred by two sets of petitioners who are accused in FIR No.428/2009 registered under Sections 420/468/471
2013:DHC:6752 '*1 \t)
IPG against them at P.S. New Friends Colony.
This FIR was registered at the instance of Mr. Shyam Garg who is petitionerNo.1 in Crl.M.C. No.3004/2011 and respondentNo.2 in Crl.M.C.
No.836/2012. The said FIR was premised on the allegation that petitioner
No.l Mr. Shyam Garg had an account with SBI being No.20000044528 since 15.12.2006 and when he had visited the said branch so as to enquire about his credit limit available in his account, he was taken aback on learning from the official of the Bank that two other saving accounts have been opened, one in his name vide A/c No.01190017938 and another account in the name of his wife vide A/C No.001190017937 both in
Morena Branch (MP)of SBI. He was also surprised to learn that for both the aforesaid fictitious bank accounts, there were two Loan Accounts, being
Loan Account Nos.01500050431 and 015000043100, and loans of Rs.20.00 lacs each were advanced by the bank. The complainant also alleged in the
FIR that he was not even present in India at the time of opening of the said fictitious accounts. The complainant also alleged that it is the partnership firm M/s K.S. Food Products and its partners that are sole beneficiaries of these fictitious accounts, which were opened by them through a well planned criminal conspiracy in connivance and collusion with the officials w of the said bank.
Based on the said allegations the aforesaid FIR was registered against these accused persons under Sections468/471/420 IPG.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP for the State submits that no complicity of the bank officials was found during the course of investigation. Counsel also submits that the petitioners, Vivek Garg and
Vineet Garg were granted anticipatory bail while the petitioners, Smt. SheelaDevi Garg and Smt. MeetaGarg, never took any steps to seek bail.
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on the otherhand, submits that the matter in dispute between the parties in fact was settled on 10.11.2010 and this fact of settlement was duly apprised by the parties to the concerned
I.O. Counsel submits that earlier also these petitioners approached this
Court to seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR but the said petition being
WP(Crl.) No.50/2010 was dismissed by this Court on 18.1.2010. Counsel also submits that the said order of the High Court was challenged by these petitioners before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.3470/2010 and vide orders dated 3.1.2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave liberty to these petitioners to approach this Court again. Counsel also submits that the complainant Mr. Shyam Garg is the uncle of Mr. Vivek Garg and Mr. Vineet Garg and, therefore, the matter in dispute is amongst the family members and, therefore, they all took a decision to amicably resolve their disputes.
Both the parties are present in Court. Shri Shyam Garg, who is the complainant states that he does not wish to prosecute the accused persons and support the quashing of this FIR against them.
Learned APP strongly opposes the quashing of this FIR. Learned APP submits that circumstantial evidences are against the accused persons and are enough to convict them. Counsel also submits that the offence committed by these accused persons is grave and serious in nature as these accused persons had opened a fictitious account in the name of Mr.Shyam
Garg and his wife and that too when Mr. Shyam Garg was not present in
India.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Although, conduct of these accused persons does not entitle them to seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR, yet considering the facts that the complainant and the main accused persons are related to each other and that they agreed to settle their disputes immediately after the registration of the said FIR, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the aforesaid
FIR against the petitioners. Before the Supreme Court of India also these parties had prayed that liberty be given tothem to approach this Court again based on the settlement arrived at between them. While taking this view, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that these accused persons opened a fictitious bank account. Therefore, these petitioners deserve to be put to heavy costs while passing orders of quashing of the said FIR.
Consequently a cost of Rs.1.00 lac is imposed upon petitioner No.2 M/s.
K.S. Food Products Ltd. in Crl.M.C. No.3004/2011. Likewise in Crl.M.C.
No.836/2012 cost of Rs.1.00 lac is imposed on the all the petitioners. The said cost shall be deposited by the petitioners with Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of four weeks from the date ofthis order.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.428/2009 registered under Sections 420/468/471 IPC against the petitioners at P.S.
New Friends Colony and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MAY 02,2013/aj
02.05.2013 These two petitions have been preferred by two sets of petitioners who are accused in FIR No.428/2009 registered under Sections 420/468/471
2013:DHC:6752 '*1 \t)
IPG against them at P.S. New Friends Colony.
This FIR was registered at the instance of Mr. Shyam Garg who is petitionerNo.1 in Crl.M.C. No.3004/2011 and respondentNo.2 in Crl.M.C.
No.836/2012. The said FIR was premised on the allegation that petitioner
No.l Mr. Shyam Garg had an account with SBI being No.20000044528 since 15.12.2006 and when he had visited the said branch so as to enquire about his credit limit available in his account, he was taken aback on learning from the official of the Bank that two other saving accounts have been opened, one in his name vide A/c No.01190017938 and another account in the name of his wife vide A/C No.001190017937 both in
Morena Branch (MP)of SBI. He was also surprised to learn that for both the aforesaid fictitious bank accounts, there were two Loan Accounts, being
Loan Account Nos.01500050431 and 015000043100, and loans of Rs.20.00 lacs each were advanced by the bank. The complainant also alleged in the
FIR that he was not even present in India at the time of opening of the said fictitious accounts. The complainant also alleged that it is the partnership firm M/s K.S. Food Products and its partners that are sole beneficiaries of these fictitious accounts, which were opened by them through a well planned criminal conspiracy in connivance and collusion with the officials w of the said bank.
Based on the said allegations the aforesaid FIR was registered against these accused persons under Sections468/471/420 IPG.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP for the State submits that no complicity of the bank officials was found during the course of investigation. Counsel also submits that the petitioners, Vivek Garg and
Vineet Garg were granted anticipatory bail while the petitioners, Smt. SheelaDevi Garg and Smt. MeetaGarg, never took any steps to seek bail.
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on the otherhand, submits that the matter in dispute between the parties in fact was settled on 10.11.2010 and this fact of settlement was duly apprised by the parties to the concerned
I.O. Counsel submits that earlier also these petitioners approached this
Court to seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR but the said petition being
WP(Crl.) No.50/2010 was dismissed by this Court on 18.1.2010. Counsel also submits that the said order of the High Court was challenged by these petitioners before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.3470/2010 and vide orders dated 3.1.2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave liberty to these petitioners to approach this Court again. Counsel also submits that the complainant Mr. Shyam Garg is the uncle of Mr. Vivek Garg and Mr. Vineet Garg and, therefore, the matter in dispute is amongst the family members and, therefore, they all took a decision to amicably resolve their disputes.
Both the parties are present in Court. Shri Shyam Garg, who is the complainant states that he does not wish to prosecute the accused persons and support the quashing of this FIR against them.
Learned APP strongly opposes the quashing of this FIR. Learned APP submits that circumstantial evidences are against the accused persons and are enough to convict them. Counsel also submits that the offence committed by these accused persons is grave and serious in nature as these accused persons had opened a fictitious account in the name of Mr.Shyam
Garg and his wife and that too when Mr. Shyam Garg was not present in
India.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Although, conduct of these accused persons does not entitle them to seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR, yet considering the facts that the complainant and the main accused persons are related to each other and that they agreed to settle their disputes immediately after the registration of the said FIR, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the aforesaid
FIR against the petitioners. Before the Supreme Court of India also these parties had prayed that liberty be given tothem to approach this Court again based on the settlement arrived at between them. While taking this view, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that these accused persons opened a fictitious bank account. Therefore, these petitioners deserve to be put to heavy costs while passing orders of quashing of the said FIR.
Consequently a cost of Rs.1.00 lac is imposed upon petitioner No.2 M/s.
K.S. Food Products Ltd. in Crl.M.C. No.3004/2011. Likewise in Crl.M.C.
No.836/2012 cost of Rs.1.00 lac is imposed on the all the petitioners. The said cost shall be deposited by the petitioners with Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of four weeks from the date ofthis order.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.428/2009 registered under Sections 420/468/471 IPC against the petitioners at P.S.
New Friends Colony and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
It is ordered accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MAY 02,2013/aj
JUDGMENT