Allowed

Nisha Goel & Anr. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2015CRL.M.C./3873/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR registered for cheating and forgery and directed the Sub-Registrar to declare an Agreement to Sell null and void after parties settled their civil dispute arising from forged documents via a settlement deed.

What did the court decide?

FIR no. 557/2014 and proceedings quashed; Agreement to Sell declared null and void; Sub-Registrar directed to modify records.

Nisha Goel & Anr. Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$-5

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

Delivered on: 9^th July, 2015

¶4

CRL.M.C. No.3873/2014

¶5

NISHA GOEL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. Mr.Murari Tiwari and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates for Petitioner No.2.

¶6

Versus

¶7

NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Jagminder Dahiya and SI Pukhraj Singh, P.S. Begumpur. Respondent No. 3 in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

¶9

SURESH KAIT, J.

¶10

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 557/2014 registered at Police Station Begumpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120-B/506 IPC on 29.05.2014 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.

¶11

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶12

Page 1 of 8

¶13

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.3, namely, Deepak Kumar Gupta due to some misunderstanding. He further submits that during investigation, it came to know that the petitioners had played no role in forging the documents in question. Moreover, the respondent No.3 has settled all the disputes with the petitioners vide settlement deed dated 05.08.2014 and does not want to pursue the further case against them. Copy of the settlement deed is annexed as Annexure-B to the present petition.

¶14

Respondent No. 3 is personally present in the Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. Respondent No.3 submits that earlier the petitioners had purchased the property in question from one Mr. Varun Kumar presuming that the documents were genuine and thereafter, the same was sold to him on the basis of the said documents. During investigation, it came to know that the petitioners had played no role in forging the documents. He submits that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and has no other complaints against any of the petitioners and does not want to pursue the case further. Therefore, he has prayed that the present petition may be allowed.

¶15

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that the petitioners are not involved in the forgery of the documents qua the previous sale and the real culprit was Trilokhan Singh in the

¶16

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶17

Page 2 of 8

¶18

previous sale Moreover, the respondent No. 3 has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and does not want to prosecute the case further, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

¶19

Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a noncompoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

¶20

“58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

¶21

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶22

Page 3 of 8

¶23

While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 . The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

¶24

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:

¶25

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.

¶26

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:

¶27

(i) ends of justice, or

¶28

(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

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶30

Page 4 of 8

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

¶35

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶38

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the

¶39

Page 6 of 8

¶40

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶41

circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

¶42

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the parties have settled their disputes amicably vide Settlement Deed dated 05.08.2014 and the statements of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and proceeding pending against the petitioners can be quashed.

¶43

Consequently, FIR No. 557/2014 registered at Police Station Begumpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120-B/506 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

¶44

I hereby make it clear that since it is established that

¶45

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶46

Page 7 of 8

¶47

Agreement to Sell was executed on 14.01.2010 in favour of the complainant/respondent No.3 on the basis of forged documents, which were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar-VI , New Delhi, vide Registration No.848 at pages 142 to 149 on 21.01.2010, thus, the same have no bearing and are hereby declared null and void.

¶48

Accordingly, the concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to modify the record by making necessary entries to this effect.

¶49

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶50

The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Sub-Registrar-VI, Kanjhawala, New Delhi, for compliance.

¶51

A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

¶53

JULY 09, 2015 sb

¶54

Crl. M.C. 3873/2014

¶55

Page 8 of 8

Nisha Goel & Anr. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Goel & Anr. v. NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prakash & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohan Chugh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Neera Mahajan @ Neera Malik Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Tyagi Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Baba Joginder Singh Vs Amandeep Kaur

Suraj & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi