Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Promod Singh S/O Sh. Ved Prakash R/O ... vs Unknown on 23 November, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
1
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL M.C.6158/2022 & CRL. MA 24236/2022
SH. PROMOD SINGH
S/O SH. VED PRAKASH
R/O HOUSE NO. 1332/31, LAXMAN VIHAR
PHASE-I, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122101
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Rajat Rajoria Singh & Ms. Manisha
Mehta, Advocate alongwith petitioner in person.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH ITSSHO
POLICE STATION- ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, DELHI
..... RESPONDENT NO.1
MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.
5TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. 8, BAASHYAM WILLOW SQUARE 9 &
1 0.,FIRST STREET, THIRU VIKA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
GUINDY, CHENNAI-600032
THROUGH ITS AR VEERU PAL ..... RESPONDENT NO.2
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with
Inspector Dinesh Malik, P.S. EOW
Mr. Vishal Khattar, Advocate alongwith Mr.
Veeru Pal, AR of Respondent No. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 23.11.2022
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seek quashing of FIR No. 04/2018 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of IPC registered at Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:25.11.2022 15:03:29 2 Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The petitioner and the Authorised Representative of respondent No. 2 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly submit that the petitioner availed loan facilities from respondent No. 2 in terms of four separate loan agreements. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of some financial crunch, the petitioner could not be able to make the timely payment of EMIs. He submits that the same has resulted in great financial distress and the petitioner thereafter sold the concerned vehicle to third parties. Since there was no concurrence by respondent No. 2-Company, therefore, instant FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner.
4. It is stated that after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. However, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have realised that the entire dispute was pre-dominantly relates to non-payment of the loan amount, accordingly, they have agreed to settle the entire dispute.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have entered into a settlement vide Settlement Deed dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-2). In terms of the settlement, it was agreed that a total sum of Rs.60,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 towards full and final settlement. It is stated that respondent No. 2 has also issued four NOCs, which have been placed on record.
6. The Authorised Representative of Respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court acknowledges the receipt of the aforesaid amount. He submits that Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:25.11.2022 15:03:29 3 respondent No. 2 has entered into the aforesaid settlement with its own free will, volition and without any coercion. He further states that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed, as respondent No. 2 is left with no claim against the petitioner.
7. The statement and undertaking given on behalf of the parties is taken on record and they are held bound by the same.
8. On the basis of various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others1, B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr2., Gian Singh v. State of Punjab3 and Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.4, it can be seen that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal proceedings for non- compoundable offences can be exercised in cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offences such as murder rape, dacoity etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. The facts of each case had to be examined to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the same relates to private dispute or a crime against an individual or crime against the society. The courts normally 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 2 (2003) 4 SCC 675 3 (2012) 10 SCC 303 4 (2013) 4 SCC 58 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:25.11.2022 15:03:29 4 should be slow in exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIR/criminal proceedings for the offences which are under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act, POCSO, NDPS, UAPA, etc.
9. Having considered the nature of allegation and the fact that the crime involved in the instant case cannot said to be heinous in nature that too when respondent No. 2 itself has agreed for quashment of the FIR.
10. In view of the aforesaid, FIR No. 04/2018 under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of IPC registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
11. Keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery was used at the instance of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate to impose the cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi Police Martyr Fund, A/c No. 18200110036907, IFS Code UCBA0001820 within four weeks from today. If the aforesaid cost is not deposited, the Registry is directed to list the matter under 'Direction Head'.
12. With above directions, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending application.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J NOVEMBER 23, 2022 p'ma Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:25.11.2022 15:03:29