versus

Delhi High Court · 01 Aug 2018 · 2018:DHC:4737
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA; 01.08.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
2018:DHC:4737
criminal petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC based on an amicable settlement between parties involving refund and return of documents, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 2103/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 01.08.2018
CRL.M.C. 2103/2018
PRADEEP MITTAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ...... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Ms. Aakanksha Bansal, Adv. along with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Virender Kumar
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
01.08.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 410 of 2016 under Sections 420/406/120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi, based on a settlement.

2. The subject FIR was registered consequent to a financial 2018:DHC:4737 transaction for sale of a property which have taken place between the parties. It is alleged that the complainant had paid Rs. 15 lakhs out of the agreed amount of Rs. 16 lakhs. Settlement Deed dated 18.05.2016 between the parties has been executed.

3. It is further submitted that the entire amount received from the complainant has been paid back and also the original documents have been handed over back to the complainant. The complainant also confirms that he has received the entire money as well as his property documents. The petitioners appearing in person submit that they have no concern with the subject property i.e. F-2/100, First Floor, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi.

4. Respondent no. 2 is present in court in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent no. 2 submits that he has settled the disputes with the petitioners and is agreeable to the settlement and does not wish to press the criminal charges against the petitioners any further.

5. In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and respondent no. 2 have been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

6. In view of the above and considering the fact that the dispute is of a private nature, FIR No. 410 of 2016 under Sections 420/406/120- B of the IPC registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed.

7. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 01, 2018 ‘rs’