Full Text
Translation output
., ...
,, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 13/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 49/12 & 17108/12
KABUL CHAWLA
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. U.U.Lalit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma and
Mr. Girish Chander, Advocates ·versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Sanjeev
Kumar, P.S. Connaught Place Mr. Ramashankar and Ms. Shivani Garg, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate for Impleader Rahul Pal.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohan Shandilya and
Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocates
,, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 13/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 49/12 & 17108/12
KABUL CHAWLA
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. U.U.Lalit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma and
Mr. Girish Chander, Advocates ·versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Sanjeev
Kumar, P.S. Connaught Place Mr. Ramashankar and Ms. Shivani Garg, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate for Impleader Rahul Pal.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohan Shandilya and
Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 31/2012 & Crl.M.A.No. 105/12 & 17111112
KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. U.U.Lalit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma and
Mr. Girish Chander, Advocates STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Sanjeev
Kumar, P.S. Connaught Place Crl.MC.Nos. 13 & 31 of2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:7715 ,, o/o
Mr. Girish Chander, Advocates STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil K.Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Sanjeev
Kumar, P.S. Connaught Place Crl.MC.Nos. 13 & 31 of2012 Page 1
2013:DHC:7715 ,, o/o
CORAM:
Mr. Ramashankar and Ms. Shivani Garg, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate for Impleader Rahul Pal.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohan Shandilya and
Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocates for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
11.04.2013 With the consent of counsel for the parties, the above-captioned two petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Quashing of FIR No. 3/2011 under Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, Delhi and FIR No.2/2011 under
Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place is sought as its basis is said to be a commercial dispute which stands settled between the parties. The factum of settlement of subject matter of these two FIRs stands verified by way of three status reports i.e. of 29th February, 2012, 14th May, 2012 and 01st April, 2013.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (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 ofcivil, Crl.MC.Nos. 13 & 31 of2012 Page 2 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 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 fac~ of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated"
When this Court was about to quash the FIR of this case, Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate has appeared on behalf of Mls Shivam Shopping
Plaza Pvt. Ltd and placed on record copy oftwo complaints pertaining to plot No.J-10 and J-11 i.e. one by M/s Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and another is by Mls SRMBuildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the reply filed to the abovesaid two complaints, which were given to the
Investigating Officer. However, learned senior counsel for petitioner, on instructions states that petitioner is ready to settle this matter with Mls.
Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd as well as with Mls. SRM Buildwell Pvt.
Ltd. by refunding the money deposited with them along with interest @
9%p.a.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate appears on behalf of Mls. Shivam
Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd and states, on instructions, that the aforesaid settlement is acceptable to these two complainants.
Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of2012 Page 3 I> Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that the refund with
" aforesaid rate of interest would be made to these two complainants i.e.
,, Mls. Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and Mls. SRM Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. within a period of six months. This is also acceptable to these two complainants, as asserted by their counsel.
Let the aforesaid settlement with M/s. Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt.
Ltd. and Mls. SRMBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. be given effect to.
'
Now Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of impfeader-
Rahul Pal by claiming that he is also one of the complainants who had booked a plot in petitioner's township at Parklands at Sector 77,-
Faridabad. Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that the FIR in question relates to petitioner's Parklands project in Sector 82 to 89, Faridabad.
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate states that the application for intervention in this matter had been returned under objection and he wants tore-file it and so the hearing of this matter be deferred. However, Mr. Gupta concedes that no such complaint has been made to the
·' Investigating Officer of this case. Apart from this, grievance of impleader- Rahul Pal relates to a project in ~ different sector and petitioner has no privity with impleader/applicant Rahul Pal. It is so asserted by learned senior counsel for petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to defer the hearing of this matter because some intervention application is sought to be filed by Mr. Rahul Pal and because this person has not even made any complaint to the Investigating Officer of this case. In any case, it would be open to Rahul Pal to avail ofthe remedy as available in law.
Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of2012 Page4 -~ With the aforesaid observations, these two petitions are disposed of while quashing the FIRs in question i.e. FIR No. 3/2011 under Sections
420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, Delhi and FIR
No.2/2011 under Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S.
Connaught Place and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Pending applications also stand disposed ofaccordingly-..
.•
APRIL 11,2013 mm Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of 2012 ·~
-4?uNILGAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate for Impleader Rahul Pal.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohan Shandilya and
Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocates for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
11.04.2013 With the consent of counsel for the parties, the above-captioned two petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Quashing of FIR No. 3/2011 under Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, Delhi and FIR No.2/2011 under
Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place is sought as its basis is said to be a commercial dispute which stands settled between the parties. The factum of settlement of subject matter of these two FIRs stands verified by way of three status reports i.e. of 29th February, 2012, 14th May, 2012 and 01st April, 2013.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (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 ofcivil, Crl.MC.Nos. 13 & 31 of2012 Page 2 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 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 fac~ of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated"
When this Court was about to quash the FIR of this case, Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate has appeared on behalf of Mls Shivam Shopping
Plaza Pvt. Ltd and placed on record copy oftwo complaints pertaining to plot No.J-10 and J-11 i.e. one by M/s Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and another is by Mls SRMBuildwell Pvt. Ltd.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the reply filed to the abovesaid two complaints, which were given to the
Investigating Officer. However, learned senior counsel for petitioner, on instructions states that petitioner is ready to settle this matter with Mls.
Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd as well as with Mls. SRM Buildwell Pvt.
Ltd. by refunding the money deposited with them along with interest @
9%p.a.
Mr. Raj Kumar Batra, Advocate appears on behalf of Mls. Shivam
Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd and states, on instructions, that the aforesaid settlement is acceptable to these two complainants.
Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of2012 Page 3 I> Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that the refund with
" aforesaid rate of interest would be made to these two complainants i.e.
,, Mls. Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and Mls. SRM Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. within a period of six months. This is also acceptable to these two complainants, as asserted by their counsel.
Let the aforesaid settlement with M/s. Shivam Shopping Plaza Pvt.
Ltd. and Mls. SRMBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. be given effect to.
'
Now Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of impfeader-
Rahul Pal by claiming that he is also one of the complainants who had booked a plot in petitioner's township at Parklands at Sector 77,-
Faridabad. Learned senior counsel for petitioner states that the FIR in question relates to petitioner's Parklands project in Sector 82 to 89, Faridabad.
Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate states that the application for intervention in this matter had been returned under objection and he wants tore-file it and so the hearing of this matter be deferred. However, Mr. Gupta concedes that no such complaint has been made to the
·' Investigating Officer of this case. Apart from this, grievance of impleader- Rahul Pal relates to a project in ~ different sector and petitioner has no privity with impleader/applicant Rahul Pal. It is so asserted by learned senior counsel for petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to defer the hearing of this matter because some intervention application is sought to be filed by Mr. Rahul Pal and because this person has not even made any complaint to the Investigating Officer of this case. In any case, it would be open to Rahul Pal to avail ofthe remedy as available in law.
Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of2012 Page4 -~ With the aforesaid observations, these two petitions are disposed of while quashing the FIRs in question i.e. FIR No. 3/2011 under Sections
420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, Delhi and FIR
No.2/2011 under Sections 420/409/120B of IPC registered at P.S.
Connaught Place and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Pending applications also stand disposed ofaccordingly-..
.•
APRIL 11,2013 mm Crl.MC.Nos. 13 &31 of 2012 ·~
-4?uNILGAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
JUDGMENT