Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3009/2022 & CRL.M.A. 12667/2022
LOK CHAND ALIAS LOKESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ghanshyam Sharma, Adv. with petitioner.
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP and Insp.
Sanjay Sharma, PS Connaught Place and Insp. Amit Kumar, T1-KPH.
Date of Decision: 10.07.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking the quashing of FIR NO. 148/2007 under Sections 420of IPC registered at PS Connaught Place. Charge-sheet was filed under sections 420/406/174A of IPC.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case was registered on the complaint made by respondent no 2 alleging that petitioner availed a vehicle loan and later on the petitioner failed to pay the EMIs. The PDCs issued to respondent No.2/Tata Motors got dishonored. Respondent No. 2 later on got merged with Respondent No.3/Kotak Mahindra Bank who got the present FIR lodged.
3. Learned counsel submits that however now the petitioner has made the total payment of Rs. 4.10 lacs to the respondents and Respondent No.2 and 3 have issued No Dues Certificate in this regard.
4. It has further been pointed out that in the order dated 05.08.2022, Mr. Vipin Goswami, Senior Manager, of Respondent No.3/Kotak Mahindra Bank, admitted that the petitioner has made the payment of the entire dues of the bank and the bank has left with no grievances against the petitioner and they have no objection if the present FIR is quashed for the offense under Sections 420/406/174A of IPC.
5. Learned APP for the state has opposed the quashing of FIR on the ground that Section 174A IPC is also charged against the accused as he did not attend the trial and he was declared a proclaimed offender.
6. Learned APP has further submitted that the present FIR is of 2007 and for last 16 years the petitioner has misused the entire machinery meant for the dispensation of justice. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the FIR may not be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner who is a farmer and living in a small Kasba, Bamni Khera was under the impression that since the payments are being made, he may not be required to appear. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no malafide on the part of the petitioner.
8. I have considered the submissions.
9. The perusal of the record indicates that the FIR was lodged on the ground of non-payment of loan amount by the petitioner against the loan of a vehicle.
10. However, now that the entire payment has been settled, I consider that there would be no purpose in continuing with the trial only under Section 174A IPC. Hence the present FIR No. 148/2007 under Sections 420/406/174A IPC registered at PS Connaught Place is quashed.
11. However, since the entire criminal justice delivery system is used for around 16 years, the petitioner is liable to be burdened with costs either monetary or in some form of social service.
12. Let the petitioner plant 200 trees in his Kasba Bamni Khera and shall also do some social work in the village as assigned by the concerned SDM.
13. SDM, Palwal is directed to file a certificate ensuring that the petitioner has planted 200 trees as decided by the concerned Horticulture Officer and petitioner has also devoted a minimum of 100 hours in the 2 months in social service.
14. Let the matter be listed for compliance on 13.10.2023.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JULY 10, 2023