High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/1615/2013

Manoj Arora v. State

2016-08-05Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi2 pages

$~9.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1615/2013 MANOJ ARORA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ashish Bhagat and Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Mr.

Peeyush Bhati, Adv a/w SI Pooran Mal, PS Kirti Nagar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 05.08.2016 By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No.389/2012 under Section 229A IPC registered at PS Kirti Nagar. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said proceedings were initiated on account of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned MM-08 (W) Delhi in case FIR No.160/2012, wherein the petitioner was the accused. He submits that the petitioner has already compounded the main offence which was the subject matter of FIR No.160/2012.

The order passed by the trial court dated 27.11.2013 and the settlement arrived at in mediation have been placed on record. Mr. Mahajan submits that the offence under Section 229A IPC is an independent offence and merely because the offence under the aforesaid FIR may have been compounded is no reason to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. He also places reliance on a decision of this Court in Maneesh Goomer v. State, 2012 (1) JCC 465, wherein this court held in relation to the offence under Section 174A IPC that the same is an independent cause of action and merely because the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been settled in that case was no reason that the FIR be also quashed.

I am of the view that since the main offence itself stands compounded, the petitioner can be subjected to appropriate costs while quashing the FIR in the present case. The purpose is to send an appropriate message to the litigating public at large that summons and warrants issued by the court and conditions of bail cannot be breached without consequences.

In these circumstances, the FIR in question is quashed subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.50,000/- in Prime Minster's National Relief Fund. Costs be paid within four weeks and the receipt of costs be provided to the IO.

VIPIN SANGHI, J AUGUST 05, 2016 sr