Syed Salman Ali & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications are disposed of. Crl.M.C.1654/2020

3. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR NO. 517/2017 dated 18.12.2017, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.

4. Notice issued. 2020:DHC:2561

5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by respondent no.2 through video conferencing and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.

6. The present petition is filed on the ground that parties have settled their disputes and respondent no. 2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that previously petitioner approached this Court vide Crl.M.C.4213/2018 and the same was taken up on 21.08.2018 whereby observed that the present case is a grave and sinister nature and cannot be allowed to be brushed under the carpet only because one victim of the petitioners has now agreed to bury the hatchet, her money having been or in the process of being refunded. Even going by the allegations in the FIR, the petitioners had a network running to secure admissions by backdoor methods in the institutions of higher learning. A case of this case nature needs to be taken to the logical end. This is hardly a matter where this court should exercise its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. [see Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another: (2017) 9 SCC 641].

8. At that stage, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the said petition and accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

9. After the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and IO of the case who is present in Court through video conferencing submits that, there is no other case registered against any of the petitioners and not received any complaint from any corner regarding taking the money for getting the admission from backdoor.

10. This Court put a specific query to the IO that whether they are part of some racket, however, he replied in negative.

11. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Jitender Rana & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.: 2007 SCC OnLine Del 222 and the relevant paras are as under:

12. Respondent no.2 made a statement before the Trial Court on 05.02.2020 that she has received the entire amount and not interested to prosecute the petitioners any further. Accordingly, the Trial Court recorded in the aforesaid order that offences under section 419/420 IPC are compoundable, however, section 120-B IPC is non-compoundable. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

13. Complainant/Respondent No. 2 is personally present in Court through video conferencing and she has been identified by SI Ravi Kumar/IO and submits that matter has been settled. She paid an amount of Rs.12,50,000/in the year 2017 and has received Rs.14,50,000/-from the petitioners in the year 2020. Thus, she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further against the petitioners and prayed this Court that present petition may be allowed.

14. Learned APP for State, on the other hand, has raised an objection that earlier also petitioners came before this Court and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Moreover, due to the registration of FIR, Government machinery came in motion and public time is wasted, therefore, if this Court is inclined to quash FIR, heavy cost may be imposed upon petitioners.