Allowed

Divya Sethi and Ors. v. State

Delhi HC5 Aug 2020W.P.(CRL)/1182/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed FIR No. 461/2020 registered under section 420 IPC and disposed of the writ petition. The court was satisfied that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the complainant withdrew the pending complaint, the balance amount was repaid via demand draft, and the complainant agreed to withdraw the related section 138 NI Act complaint shortly.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 461/2020 registered under section 420 IPC and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Divya Sethi and Ors. Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

via Video-conferencing

¶2

$~5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

W.P. (CRL.) 1182/2020 & CRL. M.A. No. 10456/2020 MS. DIVYA SETHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Nasiar, Advocate. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 inperson.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for State. Mr. Vishal Soni, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr.Parveen Garg/R2 in-person. Mr. Satish Gupta in-person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶8

O R D E R % 05.08.2020

¶9

CRL. M.A. 10456/2020 (for exemption)

¶10

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P. (CRL.) No. 1182/2020

¶13

The petitioners, who run a travel agency under the name and style of M/s Ayaan Travels in Rohini, Delhi, and had received a sum or Rs.2,80,000/- by cheque and Rs.98,000/- in cash, towards booking of airline tickets and hotels vouchers for a group of travelers, being the family members of respondent No. 2/Parveen Garg and his friend

¶14

W.P.(CRL.) No. 1182/2020

¶15

Page of 1 4

¶16

Satish Gupta, seek quashing of FIR No. 461/2020 dated 26.06.2020 registered under section 420 IPC at PS : Keshav Puram, Delhi.

¶17

Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the eve of the travel, it transpired that Parveen Garg was informed by the petitioners that their travel bookings were cancelled; whereupon, on Parveen Garg's request, the petitioners refunded the amount received by way of Rs. 98,000/- in cash and Rs.2,80,000/- by way of 04 post-dated cheques, consequent to which Parveen Garg withdrew a complaint dated 22.07.2019 that he had made to the police at that stage.

¶18

It turned-out however that the post-dated cheques issued were dishonoured on presentment, which led to Parveen Garg filing a complaint based upon which FIR No. 461/2020 dated 26.06.2020 was registered.

¶19

By way of present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, based upon a compromise deed dated 20.07.2020 executed between the petitioners and Parveen Garg.

¶20

The compromise deed recites that of the balance sum of Rs.2,80,000/-, Rs.1,40,000/- was repaid by way of a demand draft dated 20.07.2020 which was handed-over at the time of signing the compromise deed; and the balance of Rs.1,40,000/- is being paid at the stage of quashing of the FIR before the court.

¶21

A copy of the compromise deed is annexed with the petition. Also annexed with the petition are proofs of identity of the petitioners by way of photocopies of their Aadhaar cards. The petition is also

¶22

W.P.(CRL.) No. 1182/2020

¶23

Page of 2 4

¶24

supported by an affidavit of the complainant Parveen Garg along with proof of identity by way of a photocopy of his Aadhaar card. Parveen Garg has also filed an affidavit in support of the petition, confirming what is recorded above.

¶25

7. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of Mr. Sanjeev Nasiar, learned counsel states that the parties have amicably settled the matter, which alleged offences only under sections 420 IPC and the FIR may be quashed to end the dispute and ensure harmony between the parties.

¶26

Issue notice.

¶27

Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Standing Counsel appears for the State on advance copy; and accepts notice.

¶28

Ms. Kapoor submits that the State has no objection to the FIR being quashed, except that another person, by name Satish Gupta, was also part of the transaction since he had also purchased air tickets and hotel vouchers from the petitioners against the same payment.

¶29

Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 : Divya Sethi, Vishal Vijayan and Abhishek Sethi have joined the video-conference hearing and have been identified by Mr. Nasiar. Respondent No. 2/Parveen Garg is also present alongwith Satish Gupta through video-conferencing, both of whom have been identified by Mr. Vishal Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

The court has interacted with the petitioners as well as with respondent No. 2/Parveen Garg; and in particular with Satish Gupta, who is also present. Mr. Gupta has stated that he had made the bookings through his friend, Parveen Garg; and has received his share

¶31

W.P.(CRL.) No. 1182/2020

¶32

Page of 3 4

¶33

of the money refunded by the petitioners; and has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

¶34

Mr. Garg has further confirmed that the balance sum of Rs.1,40,000/- has also been received today by way of a demand draft, which is now in his possession.

¶35

Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel points-out that one of the aspects of the compromise deed is that the complainant will withdraw the pending complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 within 07 days of quashing of the FIR, after receiving the entire sum of Rs.2,80,000/-.

¶36

Mr. Garg undertakes that steps for withdrawal will be taken as per the compromise deed.

¶37

Accordingly, considering the nature of the offences alleged and the fact that parties have amicably settled and compromised the matter, this court sees no reason why the FIR in question should not be quashed.

¶38

Accordingly, FIR No. 461/2020 dated 26.06.2020 registered under section 420 IPC at PS : Keshav Puram, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶39

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶40

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

¶42

AUGUST 05, 2020 j

¶43

W.P.(CRL.) No. 1182/2020

¶44

Page of 4 4

Divya Sethi and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Sethi and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil @ Annu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mufidul Islam Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Mukhtar Khan Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Parminder Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sudhir Vs State

Shri Kanumuru Ragurama Krishna Raju Vs Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs

Dilip Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Gomti@Manoj Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Mohd Anwar Vs State

Ashok Panwar @Ashok Pawar Vs State

Sonu Vs the State

Nikki Alias Vikas Vs State

Daanvir Karan Singh Vs the State ( Govt of Nct) & Anr.

Vikas @ Vikky Vs State of NCT of Delhi