Bimal Jain v. State & ANR.

$~39 & 90 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5993/2019 BIMAL JAIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Naveen Malhotra, Advocate alongwith Petitioner-in-Person.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State alongwith Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Mr. Krishan Pal Singh Mahalwar, Advocates & SI Vandana (P.S.

DIU/West).

Mr.

Naveen Malhotra, Advocate for R-2 & Son of R-2/Surinder Solanki alongwith R-2 in Person.

Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Mr.

Anish Dewan, Ms. Shivani Purthi & Mr. Nahush Khera, Advocates for Respondent No.3/Gagan Kakkar alongwith R-3-inPerson.

+ CRL.M.C. 4242/2024 GAGAN KAKKAR & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Mr.

Anish Dewan, Ms. Shivani Purthi & Mr.

Nahua Khera, Advocates alongwith Petitioner-inPerson.

versus The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State alongwith Mr.

Mukesh Rani, Mr. Mukesh Dahiya & Ms. Neha, Advocates & SI Vandana (P.S.

DIU/West).

Respondent No.2/Bimal Kumar Jain-in-Person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 24.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 16088/2024 in CRL.M.C. 4242/2024 (exemption from filing certified copies of annexures) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

3.

The present petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), seeking quashing of cross-FIR Nos. 1327/2015 dated 23.10.2015, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and FIR No. 957/2015 dated 06.10.2015, registered at police station Vikas Puri, for offences under Sections 419/420/468/471/467/120B/34 of IPC.

4.

The FIR No. 1327/2015 was registered on a complaint filed by one Mr. Ashok Solanki (Respondent No.2/Complainant in CRL.M.C. 5993/2019) and FIR No. 957/2015 was registered on a complaint filed by Mr. Bimal Kumar Jain (Respondent The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

No.2/Complainant in CRL.M.C. 4242/2024).

5.

It is alleged that Mr. Ashok Solanki purchased a property bearing no. WZ-33, Village Asalatpur, Khadar, New Delhi ('subject property') through a registered deed dated 24.08.2002. It is alleged that a person impersonating himself as Ashok Solanki entered into a sale/purchase agreement with Respondent No.2/ Bimal Kumar Jain in lieu of the subject property for a sale consideration of ₹2,80,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the whole transaction for the subject property was fraudulent and led to the registration of FIR No.957/2015. Subsequently, a crossFIR bearing no. 1327/2015 was registered against Bimal Jain at the instance of Ashok Solanki alleging that the subject property had been sold without his knowledge by a person who impersonated himself as Ashok Solanki.

6.

The present petitions are filed on the ground that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes by way of a Settlement Deed dated 07.05.2024, with the intervention of wellwishers and respectable members of the society, on their own free will without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. In terms of the settlement, the parties have agreed that they will approach and appear before this Court seeking quashing of crossFIR No. 1327/2015 and FIR No. 957/2015. 7.

The complainants in the cross-FIR Nos. 1327/2015 and FIR No. 957/2015 are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. They state that they have settled all their disputes amicably and they do not have any objection if the proceedings arising out of the present cross-FIRs are quashed.

8.

The FIRs were lodged way back in the year 2015 and the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

charge sheets have already been filed.

9.

Offences under Sections 419/420 of the IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Sections 467/468/ 471 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

10.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."

(emphasis supplied) 11.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) 12.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

13.

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheets have already been filed in the case arising out of the cross-FIR Nos. 1327/2015 and FIR No. 957/2015, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.

14.

In view of the above, cross-FIR Nos. 1327/2015 and FIR No. 957/2015 and all consequential proceedings arising The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹ 50,000/- by the petitioners in each case, to be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today in the following manner: a. ₹40,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund; b. ₹20,000/- with the New Delhi Bar Association, Patiala House Courts;

c. ₹20,000/- with the Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts and;

d. ₹20,000/- with the Shahadara Bar Association, Karkardooma Courts.

15.

The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. 16.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

17.

Proof of deposit of cost be submitted with the concerned SHO / IO.

18.

A copy of this order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAY 24, 2024 'Aman'

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.