Full Text
JUDGMENT
SIMMI GROVER & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. O.P. Saxena with
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advs. for petitioner nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Jayant K. Sood with Mr. Pranshu Dhingra, Advs. for petitioner no.4.
Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghai, APP for State with SI Suresh Kumar, PS-K.N. Katju
Marg.
Mr. Jawahar Chawla, Adv. for Respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 2 in person.
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.299/2011 registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Roopali Kapoor, which 2015:DHC:9802 culminated into the FIR mentioned above. Thereafter, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement dated 16.08.2013 and agreed to remain bound by the same. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as full and final settlement to the Corporation Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch towards loan account of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 being no. LICS/1/911297. Out of the settlement amount, petitioner no.4 was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and from the remaining amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, Rs. 3,75,000/- each was directed to be deposited by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on one part and petitioner no. 3 on another part. It was further agreed that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid to the Bank in two equal instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each, i.e, on 30.08.2013 and 30.10.2013 in the ratio of Rs.1,25,000/- by petitioner no. 4 and Rs.3,75,000/- by petitioner nos. 1 to 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that aforesaid amount has been deposited to the Bank mentioned above and consequent thereto, the Bank has issued the final settlement letter dated 24.07.2014 and has withdrawn OA No. 121/2011 pending before DRT- III, vide its order dated 05.03.2015. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court through her counsel. She has been duly identified by SI Suresh Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel on instructions submits that the respondent no. 2 is the owner of property bearing no. H-2/63 and H-2/64, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi and Petitioner no. 3 Sandeep Pawar sold the said property on the forged document to the petitioner no.1 and 2 who thereafter obtained loan against the said property from Corporation Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch without knowledge and consent of the respondent no.2. Petitioner no.4 being the broker of the property forged some documents also. Accordingly, she made a complaint to the police. However, since the police did not take any action, she was compelled to file a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, accordingly, FIR mentioned above was registered.
4. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter respondent no. 2 approached DRT and filed a Civil petition under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and obtained stay. Thereafter the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioners agreed to return the original documents, prepared by them, to respondent no.2, who shall be entitled and competent to approach the registering authority for cancellation of the sale deeds on the basis of the mediation settlement. He further submits that coming to this stage, she has been fighting in different Courts as more than 4 litigations were pending regarding the property in question. However, she received nothing but has only satisfaction that she will get her property back. Thus, if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR mentioned above, heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioners.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the present case is registered in the year 2011. He further submits that though the matter has been settled between the parties, however in this process, the govt. machine has been put into motion and precious public time of the Court has been consumed. Thus, if this Court is inclined to allow the petition, heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioners. He further submits that six more cases are also registered against petitioner no. 4, which are as under:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl.No. FIR Under Section Police Status of │ │ Station the case │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. 96/2000 420/468/471/120B IPC Pr. Pending trial │ │ Vihar │ │ 2. 219/2008 420/468/471/120B/406/174 Pr. Pending trial │ │ IPC Vihar │ │ 3. 87/2012 420/468/471/120B IPC K.N.K. Pending │ │ Marg investigation │ │ 4. 600/2013 420/468/471/120B IPC K.N.K. Pending │ │ Marg investigation │ │ 5. 133/2007 420/467/468/471/120B S.P. Pending │ │ IPC Badli Trial │ │ 6. 826/2014 420/506 IPC K.N.K. Pending │ │ Marg investigation │ │ 6. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
8. At this stage it is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent no.2 that as per the clause 10 of the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that the original sale deed in the name of Ms Simmi Grover (petitioner no.1) and the violation report pertaining to the properties bearing no.H-2/63 and H-2/64 (ground floors), Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi held by the Corporation Bank shall be returned to the complainant Rupali Kapoor/respondent no.2 who shall be entitled and competent to approach the registering authority for cancellation of the sale deeds on the basis of settlement dated 16.08.2013.
9. SI Suresh Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case, who is present in the court submits that the aforesaid documents have been sent to FSL for examination. Accordingly, the said officer is directed to receive those documents from the Director, FSL expeditiously and place the photocopyof the same on record and the original documents be returned to the respondent no.2.
10. To avoid the delay, concerned Director, FSL is directed to examine the said documents on priority basis and hand over report within six weeks from today to the concerned Investigating Officer.
11. The order of this Court be sent to Director, FSL, Rohini for compliance.
12. Both the parties are present in the Court today, approbate to the aforesaid settlement dated 16.08.2013 and undertake to remain bound by the same.
13. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent no.2 and ld. APP for the State and the settled legal position, FIR No. 299/2011, registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners.
14. Before parting with the instant petition, I find force in the submission of ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and ld. APP for State on the issue of cost. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 on instructions submits that petitioner nos.[1] and 2 and petitioner no. 3 are ready to compensate with an amount of Rs.75,000/- each and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively to respondent no.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no.4 on instructions submits that petitioner no. 4 is also ready to compensate with an amount of Rs.1.55 lacs to respondent no.2.
15. Accordingly, petitioners are directed to pay the amounts mentioned above to respondent no.2 within two months from today under prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
16. In view of the above, petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) DECEMBER 01, 2015 Afa/jg