Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunil Kumar vs The State (Govt. Ofnct Of Delhi) And Anr on 11 May, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~27 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2102/2022
SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shrawan Babu, Ms. Preeti D.
Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI)
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State
with SI Vijay Raj, PS- Patel Nagar.
Mr. Harish Kumar, Mr. Amit
Masih, Advocates for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 1832/2022
SHWETA TIWARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Dolly Sharma, Mr. Sunil
Tiwari, Advocates with the
petitioner.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State
with SI Vijay Raj, PS- Patel Nagar.
Mr. Harish Kumar, Mr. Amit
Masih, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 11.05.2022
1. By way of these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 CRL.M.C. 2102/2022 & CRL.M.C. 1832/2022 Page 1 of 4 Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"], the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 0362/2018, dated 17.12.2018, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"], wherein both of them have been named as the accused.
2. It is alleged in the FIR that, on 06.08.2018, when the respondent No. 2-complainant went to the bank to withdraw money from her account, it came to her knowledge that the amount of INR 1,33,443/- was fraudulently transferred from her account to the account of the petitioners by way of NEFT. It is also stated in the FIR that the petitioners are strangers to the complainant.
3. Status reports in both the petitions are handed over in Court today and are taken on record.
4. It is stated in the petitions that the petitioners and the complainant have agreed to settle their disputes and have entered into settlements, being memorandum of understanding ["MoU"] dated 24.09.2019 in CRL.M.C 2102/2022 and MoU dated 25.01.2022 in CRL.M.C. 1832/2022. In the MoU dated 24.09.2019 in CRL.M.C 2102/2022, it is recorded that the complainant has received the settlement amount of INR 1,50,000/-. In the MoU dated 25.01.2022 in CRL.M.C. 1832/2022, it is recorded that the complainant will receive INR 33,500/- from the petitioner therein at time of quashing of the present petition.
5. The petitioners in both the petitions and the complainant are present in Court. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer and their respective counsel. The complainant confirms that she has settled the matter of her own free will and volition, and without any pressure or coercion from any side, and she consents to the quashing of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 CRL.M.C. 2102/2022 & CRL.M.C. 1832/2022 Page 2 of 4 the FIR.
6. The power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. While emphasising that the exercise of the power under Section 482 of the CrPC in a particular case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and no hard and fast categorisation is possible, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 [paragraph 58] observed that in case of offence arising out of matrimonial and family disputes, the wrong is basically to the victim and the quashing of criminal proceedings in such a case may be appropriate even if the offences have not been made compoundable. Similarly, the guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 [paragraph 29.4] contemplate that FIRs arising out of such relationships can be quashed if it would meet the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
7. In the present cases, it appears that the financial transactions from the complainant's bank account have been duly restituted. The complainant has accepted the same and does not wish to proceed further. At this stage, the FIR is only under Section 420 of the IPC, which is, in any event, compoundable. The status reports also do not reveal any specific material linking the petitioners with any deliberate act of hacking or initiating the transactions in question.
8. The offence in question is in the nature of a personal grievance rather than a crime against society at large. In the case of such complaints, the Supreme Court has held that the proceedings can be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 CRL.M.C. 2102/2022 & CRL.M.C. 1832/2022 Page 3 of 4 quashed on the parties reaching a settlement. The allegations are not of such a nature which would render quashing of the FIR impermissible, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court. The parties having entered into voluntary settlements, the likelihood of conviction has also diminished. In these circumstances, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings arising out of the subject FIR.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed and FIR No. 0362/2018, dated 17.12.2018, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, under Section 420 of the IPC stands quashed, alongwith all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 11, 2022 'Bhupi'/ Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 CRL.M.C. 2102/2022 & CRL.M.C. 1832/2022 Page 4 of 4