Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashish Sachdeva & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 May, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 & Crl.M.A.9221/2022
ASHISH SACHDEVA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak
Bhatt, Mr. Vaibhav Nanda and Mr.
Vishvendra Tomar, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for State
with SI Dhananjay Kumar, PS-
Dwarka South (Mobile No.
7384821480).
Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms.
Shruttima Fhersa, Mr. Rohan
Ahuja, Mr. Vatsalya Vishal and
Ms. Riya Gupta, Advocates for R-
3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 11.05.2022
1. Issue notice. Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 Page 1 of 5 1973 ["CrPC"] for the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the FIR No. 188/2022 dated 19.04.2022 registered against the Petitioners at the behest of the Complainant before P.S. Dwarka South and all proceedings emanating therefrom in view of the settlement between the parties in terms of the MoU dated 22.04.2022; AND
b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent No.1 - State to take-off and/or resist from uploading and/or remove any content pertaining to said FIR No. 188/2022 from the internet in the interest of protecting the Petitioners right to privacy and their right to be forgotten; AND
c) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the third-party websites/platforms, i.e. Respondent No. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 not to upload / publish / disseminate any content pertaining to FIR No. 188/2022 including contents pertaining to the present Petition and/or any orders in this regard and block off its access by third party intermediaries/search engines such as Google, Yahoo etc.; AND
d) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the third-party intermediaries/search engines, i.e. Respondent No. 3, 4, 8 and 9 not to upload / publish / disseminate any content pertaining to FIR No. 188/2022 including contents pertaining to the present Petition and/or any orders in this regard; AND/OR
e) Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. The respondent No.2 herein, who works as a property dealer, is the complainant in the subject FIR, wherein he has alleged that petitioners Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 Page 2 of 5 had availed his services for selling a property (371, Airforce Naval Apartment, Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi) ["the property"], which, according to the petitioners, was owned by them. He has alleged that the petitioners had approached him with a dishonest motive. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners claimed that they were the owners of the property, but it was found that the title of the property was in the name of the deceased mother of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 had also transferred an advance sum of ₹ 17.5 lakhs to the petitioners for facilitation towards the transfer of the title of the property in the name the proposed buyer.
4. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 are residents of the same area, and have been known to each other for a fairly long time. It is further stated that the parties have, with the intervention of well-wishers, decided to settle their disputes and have entered into a settlement. The Memorandum of Understanding ["MoU"] dated 22.04.2022 to this effect has also been placed on record. The petitioners are present in Court and the respondent No. 2 has joined the proceedings through video conference. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. The complainant also confirms the receipt of the said amount, and states that he has no objection to the FIR being quashed. The complainant further confirms that he has entered into the settlement agreement of his free will, and without any pressure or coercion from any party.
5. Ms. Saguna Sodhi, the sister of the petitioners, who is appearing through video conference, confirms that she has remitted a sum of ₹17.5 lakhs to the complainant from her bank account, pursuant to the MoU between the complainant and her siblings. Ms. Sodhi has sent a copy of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 Page 3 of 5 her Aadhaar card to the Court Master, a copy whereof is taken on record.
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 & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 [paragraph 58] observed that 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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 [paragraph 29.4] contemplate that FIRs in cases where there is/was a pre-existing familial or other personal relationship between the parties may be considered in this context. Such proceedings, 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 case, the transaction between the parties has already been settled. The transaction emanates out of a property dispute which does not involve any large societal injury. There was a misunderstanding between them which has since been resolved. The complainant has accepted the compensation paid by the petitioners and does not wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings. The parties have entered into a voluntary settlement and the likelihood of conviction is also much diminished. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending, and it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR at this stage.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 Page 4 of 58. The writ petition, is therefore, allowed, and FIR 188/2022, dated 19.04.2022, registered at Police Station- Dwarka South, under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongwith all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed.
9. As far as prayers "b", "c" and "d" are concerned, they are not pressed by the petitioners. However, the petitioners seek liberty to institute such independent proceedings as they may be entitled to in law.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions, and with the liberty sought in paragraph 9 hereinabove.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 11, 2022 'vp'/ Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 15:50:55 W.P.(CRL) 1106/2022 Page 5 of 5