Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Kumar Mittal & Anr vs State & Anr on 31 October, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2445/2021
SACHIN KUMAR MITTAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Jitto Joseph, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr.
Kshitiz Garg, Adv. with SI Kapil
Beniwal, PS Mayapuri
Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. for R-2
Ms. Kunjala Bhardwaj, Mr.Madhav
Bajaj, Advs. for Mr. Kirtiman Singh,
CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 31.10.2022 Mr. Sinha, learned counsel states that on 25.05.2022, Mr. Avi Singh, learned ASC had made an inadvertent error and stated that Delhi Police had made a request to MEA for writing to Amazon Web services.
He states that Delhi Police has not written any such letter. Statement of Mr. Sinha, learned ASC is taken on record.
Since Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned CGSC was called to obtain the status of application of Delhi Police pending with the MEA and since there is no letter of Delhi Police pending with the MEA, his presence is no longer required.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:03.11.2022 18:53:00W.P.(CRL) 2445/2021 This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 361/2021 registered at PS Mayapuri u/s 420/120B IPC dated 03.09.2021.
As per the FIR, the complainant had made a complaint regarding online fraud, wherein it was stated that MG Online was offering 2% profit on daily basis upon investment of Rs. 10,000/- or more. The complainant made such investment. The accused persons asked for more money to be added to the accounts. When the complainant decided to withdraw his money, he was unable to do so. The complainant had invested more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in the online fraud.
Hence the present FIR.
During the pendency of the FIR, the parties have arrived at a settlement on 27.11.2021, pursuant to which the petitioner has refunded the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant and the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- is to be paid today.
The said sum has been paid in Court by DD No. 560631 dated 29.10.2022 drawn on Punjab National Bank.
In addition, it is stated that the petitioners had no role to play in the online fraud and their accounts were used for receiving money. They only opened their current account in their own name which was used by MG Online for remittance and receipts.
The petitioners state that they had no role to play except opening the bank accounts and were not involved in any online fraud.
It is further stated that M/s MG Online is a gaming platform and the petitioners are not the persons who had set up that gaming platform.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:03.11.2022 18:53:00The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by Mr. Jeeto Joseph. Respondent No. 2 is also present and is identified by Mr. Kapil Beniwal, PS Mayapuri.
In the present case, the parties have already settled their disputes and the entire amount has been returned by the petitioners to respondent No. 2.
The parties state that they have arrived at the settlement out of their own free will without any threat, pressure, coercion or undue influence.
Respondent No. 2 states that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Even though in the FIR it has been stated that there are more than 2,000 people who have been victims to this fraud, but there are no details with the Delhi Police in regard to any person other than the respondent who have been defrauded.
Petitioners are not the originators of the online gaming fraud but have been irresponsible in their actions and have permitted their bank accounts to be misused. The petitioners had been arrested and have spent 2 months in incarceration.
This Court in „Sunil Tomar vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.‟ [(2022) SCC online Del 1027] has permitted partial quashing of an FIR and held as under:-
"9. Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the parties. Reliance can be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:03.11.2022 18:53:00 placed on Poonam Khanna v. State in Crl. M.C. No. 3690/2016 Dated 30.01.2018.
.........
11. In Vijay Kumar Gupta v. State, Government of NCT of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 2289/2013 Dated 09.03.2017, in paragraph 7, it is observed and held as under:
"7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have paid the loan/settlement amount to the Respondent No. 2 and nothing remains to be adjudicated further, to remove the hurdle in the personal life of the present petitioners for leading better and peaceful life and to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to quash the FIR No. 107/2003, under Section 406/420/468/471 Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station - Parliament Street, Delhi qua against the petitioners, namely Vijay Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Sharma and Vinod Chaudhary only to the extent of their role in commission of the alleged offence."
For the reasons stated above, FIR No. 361/2021 registered at PS Mayapuri u/s 420/120B IPC dated 03.09.2021 is quashed qua the petitioners only.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J OCTOBER 31, 2022/dm Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:03.11.2022 18:53:00