Allowed

Shivangi Gulati v. State (Nct of Dlehi)& Anr.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2018CRL.M.C./550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal miscellaneous case considered a petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and cheating by a bank employee. Quashing was granted following full payment by the petitioner and consent from the complainant, subject to deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.1339/2015 and proceedings quashed subject to deposit of Rs.50,000 with Prisoners Welfare Fund, Jail No. 14, Mandoli, within two weeks.

Shivangi Gulati Vs State (Nct of Dlehi)& Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 550/2018 SHIVANGI GULATI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajan Bajaj, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)& ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Puneet Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent No.2. SI Sumitra Sharma, PS Rajouri Garden.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 02.02.2018

¶7

Crl.M.A. 2017/2018 (exemption) Crl.M.A. 2018/2018 (exemption)

¶8

Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

CRL.M.C. 550/2018

¶10

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.1339/2015 under Sections 420/467/468/471/409 IPC, Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of a settlement.

¶11

The allegation in the FIR is that, the petitioner, who was holding the position of Relationship Manager, carried out certain transactions leading to debit entries in the account of one customer and allegedly misappropriated the funds to the tune of approximately

¶12

CRL.M.C. 550/2018

¶13

Page 1

¶14

Rs.69,00,000/-. After lodging of the FIR on the complaint of the customer, inquiries were made by the Bank and the payment was made to the customer.

¶15

The Bank has ultimately settled with the petitioner and the Settlement Deed dated 07.04.2016 has been executed. As per the agreement, it was agreed that the total disputed transaction which were paid by the Bank to its customer amounting to Rs.69,56,223/-, less, a sum of Rs.15,65,206/- lying invested in a ICICI Prudential Account, which was recovered by the respondent Bank through the said account, would be paid by the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs.53,91,017/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent Bank. The service of the petitioner has also been terminated by the respondent Bank.

¶16

It may be noticed that earlier also the petitioner had filed a petition being Crl. M.C.2650/2016. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.02.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the said date, i.e. 08.02.2017, the entire payment had not been paid. He, submits that since the said date of 08.02.2017, the entire payment has now been made to the Bank.

¶17

Mr. Jaipal Sinmhar, Regional Head, Forex, who is the complainant in the FIR, submits that he has instructions on behalf of the respondent No.2 to consent to the present petition.

¶18

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and the petitioner has paid the entire agreed amount and the fact that

¶19

CRL.M.C. 550/2018

¶20

Page 2

¶21

the respondent No.2 does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings as there is a slim likelihood of conviction. Further, in view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice, to quash the subject FIR as well as the consequent proceedings arising there from.

¶22

Learned APP appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and, in case, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion, it should be subject to terms.

¶23

In view of the above, FIR No.1339/2015 under Sections 420/467/468/471/409 IPC, Police Station Rajouri Garden as well as the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing cost of Rs.50,000/- with the “Prisoners Welfare Fund, Jail No. 14, Mandoli” , Mangal Pandey Marg, Harsh Vihar, Village Mandoli, Delhi, within a period of two weeks from today. Receipt of deposit of the costs imposed by this Order be furnished to the concerned Investigating Officer within a period of three weeks from today.

¶24

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶25

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 02, 2018 st

¶27

CRL.M.C. 550/2018

¶28

Page 3

Shivangi Gulati v. State (Nct of Dlehi)& Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivangi Gulati v. State (Nct of Dlehi)& Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhulika S Rastogi Vs State (Govt of NCT New Delhi)

Sonu Vs State(Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Jutshi@Bunti Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Aakash Punatar & Ors. Vs N.C.T of Dlehi & Anr.

Bachi Devi Vs State & Anr.

Pankaj Dhawan Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.