Kailash & ORS. v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ORS.

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: August 24, 2015 + CRL.M.C.3422/2015 KAILASH & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

.... Respondents Through:

Mr. Satya Narayan, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with ASI Rajender Singh

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

% (ORAL) Crl.M.A.12227/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.C.3422/2015 This is second round of litigation. In the first round, petitioner had sought quashing of FIR No.24/2008 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Nehru Place, New Delhi on the ground that entire amount of loan has been pre-paid to the respondent-bank and similar petition was dismissed by another Bench of this Court vide order of 6th August, 2012 (Annexure E). At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner places

reliance upon Apex Court's decision in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 428 and Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that even in cases of forgery, FIR/charge-sheet can be quashed as the disputed amount already stands paid to respondentcomplainant bank. Upon hearing and on perusal of FIR/charge-sheet, earlier rejection order (Annexure E) and the decisions cited, I find that Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) has recorded a note of caution that in serious offences, criminal proceedings are not to be quashed merely on the basis of settlements. Aforesaid view stands reiterated by Apex Court in a later decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. On this aspect, pertinent observations of Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra) are as under:- "29.

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. 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 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 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."

Applying the afore-noted dictum to the facts of this case and in view of the fact that 'No Objection Certificate' from respondentcomplainant bank is not forthcoming and otherwise also, no case for quashing the FIR in question is made out particularly in view of the fact that petitioners' earlier similar petition also stands rejected by another Bench of this Court. Moreover, forgery aspect which is very much there in this case, dissuades this Court to exercise its inherent extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in question particularly when charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the case is

pending for framing of the charges.

Consequentially, this petition is disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of this case.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE August 24, 2015 vn