Allowed

Sh. Balwinder Singh v. the State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2024CRL.M.C./2823/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court granted the petition for quashing of FIR No.504/2022 under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC. The court relied on the amicable settlement, where petitioners paid Rs.30 lakhs and the complainant expressly consented to quashing, noting the dispute had a predominant civil element.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.504/2022 and consequent criminal proceedings.

Sh. Balwinder Singh Vs the State through Govt. of NCT of… — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2823/2023

¶4

SH. BALWINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr.Rajnish Kumar, Mr.Hemant and Mr.Himanshu, Advocates with petitioners in person

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

¶8

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Manjeet Singh Mr.Fanish K. Jain and Mr.Rohit, Advocates for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 06.02.2024

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.504/2022 registered under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶14

The allegations in the present FIR are that the petitioners forged certain documents and resultantly cheated respondent No.2.

¶15

Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioners are the only accused persons and respondent No.2 is the only complainant/victim.

¶16

Learned counsels for the parties submit that as per the fresh MoU

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 15:27:50

¶18

Balwinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh i.e., petitioner Nos.1 to 3, each have paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs to respondent No.2 as well as three legal heirs by way of a demand draft, totalling to Rs.30 lacs. A copy of the same has been handed over in Court today. He further submits that the same will be filed during the course of the day. In terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 is now left with no claim whatsoever against the petitioners.

¶19

The petitioners and respondent No.2, who are present in the Court, have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

Respondent No.2 acknowledges the factum of MoU and states that she has entered into the aforesaid MoU out of her own free will, volition and without any coercion. She further states that she has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no other proceedings are pending between the parties.

¶22

The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.

¶23

In Parbatbhai Aahir and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641 , it has been held as under:-

¶24

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶25

xxx

¶26

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶27

¶28

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶29

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and…”

¶30

10. Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others

¶31

reported as (2019) 5 SCC 403 , it has been held as under:-

¶32

“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶33

15.1. That the power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences Under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;”

¶34

In view of the above facts and since no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶35

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶36

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶37

FEBRUARY 6, 2024/ na

¶38

Sh. Balwinder Singh v. the State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Balwinder Singh v. the State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

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

Abhishek Vats & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Akansha Choubey Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vishal Gupta & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi & Anr.

Kanhiya @ Kanheya and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mohit and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Parvesh Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.