Rajneesh Shokeen v. State & ORS.
29# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 447/2017 RAJNEESH SHOKEEN ..... Petitioner Represented by:
Mr. H.S. Sharma, Advocate.
versus STATE & ORS.
..... Respondents Represented by:
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Standing Counsel for State and Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Advocate with SI Nitin Nawani, PS Paharganj.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 04.04.2018 1.
By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 149/2015 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
2.
The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of one Ashutosh Sharma, authorised representative of Kotak Mahindra Bank who alleged that the petitioner and his wife took three car loans from ICICI Bank, Jhandewalan, Pahar Ganj and purchased three cars bearing registration Nos. HR 10F0010 Pajero Car, HR 26AB 0694 Tata Indica Car and HR 20D 0020 Tata Safari. Ms. Sushma Shokeen was co-borrower of W.P.(CRL) 447/2017
the car bearing No. HR 20D 0020 Tata Safari. Both these persons then sold the said cars without taking no objections by preparing forged hypothecated registration certification of the said cars.
3.
During the course of investigation, the petitioner never joined the investigation and was thus declared a proclaimed offender by the learned Trial Court. Further proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been concluded against the wife of the petitioner and proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. are in process. Even if the petitioner has settled the matter with the bank no settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and the three victims to whom the three cars were sold on the strength of forged documents.
4.
Thus this Court finds no ground to quash the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the basis of settlement. 5.
Petition is dismissed MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 04, 2018 'vn'
W.P.(CRL) 447/2017