Manish Jain & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 09 May 2012 · 2012:DHC:8086
Pratibha Rani
CrI.M.C. No.1612/2012
2012:DHC:8086
criminal appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC following an amicable settlement, emphasizing prevention of misuse of criminal proceedings for civil recovery and imposing costs on parties.

Full Text
Translation output
$-35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI / CRLM.C.1612/012 I MANISH JAIN & ORS. Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sumit Chaudhary, Adv. with ^ petitioners In person.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APR for State- R-1.
Complainant/R-2 In person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
09.05.2012 CrI.M.A. No.5645/2012
ORDER

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. CrI.M.C. No.1612/2012

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.338/2010 under Section 420 IPC registered at P.S. K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. i

2. The facts leading to the registration of the case FIR No.338/2010 P.S. K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi are that in the year 2004 respondent No.2 I approached Goel Properties, E-3/78, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi for purchasing a plot as he wanted to set up a factory. He met all the five petitioners who represented themselves to be partner of Goel Properties and owners of plot No.94, Pocket-j, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Area measuring 150 sq.mtrs. They offered to sell the plot to respondent No.2 for a total sum of Rs.l[4],18,000/-. On 06.06.2004 he made part payment of Rs.[3] lacs and balance payment of 2012:DHC:8086 Rs.11,18,000/- was to be made on 21.07.2004 at the time of handing over the possession of the plot and executing relevant transfer papers in the name of respondent No.2. On 20.07.2004 the petitioners informed respondent No.2 that they fhad hot been able to get the possession of the plot from bsiDC and requested for 30 days time. Thereafter, he visited petitioners time and again but they did not give possession of the plot to the respondent on one pretext or the other. On 23.03.2007 he visited the office of DSIDC at Connaught Place and came to know that the said plot did not belong to the petitioners. Then he made the complaint to DCP, North West, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on the basis of which FIR No.338/2010 under Sec.420 IPG was registered at PS K.N. Katju Marg against the petitioners. During the course of bail proceedings of petitioners before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I (Outer District), Rohini Courts, Delhi, the matter was referred to Mediation Cell, Rohini Courts wherein the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The report of mediation is also placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter in dispute has been amicably settled and no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2/complainant has stated that he has received a sum of Rs.[3] lacs towards full and final settlement from the petitioners today in the Court and he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners and submits that the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed.

5. On behalf of the State learned APP submits that currently the trend emerging is to initiate criminal proceedings to pressurize the other party to make the payment/settle the dispute in order to avoid arrest and prosecution. Thus, the complainant party is able to get the recovery effected without filing any civil suit or paying any court fee and in fact execution takes place on a non-existent decree so some cost must be imposed on the parties for wasting the precious time of the Court and using the State machinery virtually as a recovery agency.

6. On behalf of the complainant and petitioners, it is submitted that i they are ready to contribute the amount, considered reasonable by the Court, for the purpose of charity and benefit of that strata of society needing such help.

7. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.338/2010 under Section 420 IPC P.S. K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

9. Petitioners and respondent No.2 are also directed to deposit the cost of Rs.25,000/- each with 'Home for Leprosy and T.B. Affected Beggars' Tahir Pur, Delhi-110 093 within four weeks. A receipt of deposit of the same be filed in the Registry.

10. It is, however, made clear that the said amount of Rs.50,000/shall be kept in the form of FDR initially for a period of one year to be renewed thereafter from time-to-time and the interest accrued thereon shall be utilized for the welfare of inmates.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Home for Leprosy and T.B. Affected Beggars, Tahir Pur, Delhi-110 093 for information and compliance.

12. Dasti.

PRATIE TIBHA RANI, MAY 09, 2012 'St' \