Allowed

Jitender Kumar Jain v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Feb 2024W.P.(CRL)/436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. Noting a settlement and the complainant's unwillingness to proceed, the Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, subject to the petitioner paying ₹20,000 as costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 369/2016 and all consequential proceedings quashed subject to payment of costs of ₹20,000/- by the petitioner.

Jitender Kumar Jain Vs the State & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~91

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

¶4

JITENDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Md. Hashim and Mr. Salman, Advs. Petitioner in person. versus THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Mohit Raj Nagar, Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. with SI Manoj Tomar, PS Sarai Rohilla. Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Adv. for R-2. R-2 in person.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶7

% 08.02.2024

¶8

CRL.M.A. 4000/2024 (exemption from filing the certified copies and for filing typed fair copies of the documents / order)

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

¶12

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) seeking quashing of FIR No. 369/2016 dated 28.04.2016 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla for offences under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The chargesheet has been filed in the present case.

¶13

The FIR was registered on a complaint made by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the vehicles, which were given to

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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 16/12/2024 at 16:45:52

¶17

the petitioner on rent were fraudulently sold by the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicles were sold with a clear understanding and consent of the complainant, however, due to misunderstanding the present FIR was registered. 6. He submits that the parties have since settled their disputes and the petitioner, pursuant to the settlement, has also paid a sum of ₹8 Lakhs to the complainant.

¶19

The parties are present in person in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. The complainant, on being asked, states that she does not want to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR.

¶20

Offences under Sections 406/419/420 are compoundable in nature whereas offences under Sections 467/468/471 are noncompoundable.

¶21

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶22

The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶23

“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:

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

Page 2 of 6

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.

¶28

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:

¶29

(i) ends of justice, or

¶30

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶31

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

Page 3 of 6

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.”

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶40

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

¶41

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶42

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶43

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶44

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

Page 4 of 6

be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶49

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶50

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶51

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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

Page 5 of 6

set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)

¶59

Keeping in view the nature of dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶60

However, keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed in the case arising out of FIR No. 369/2016, and the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost.

¶61

In view of the above, FIR No. 369/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of cost of ₹20,000/- by the petitioner, out of which ₹10,000/- is to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund and ₹10,000/- is to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶62

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶63

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶64

FEBRUARY 8, 2024 / ‘KDK’

¶65

W.P.(CRL) 436/2024

¶66

Page 6 of 6

¶67

This is a digitally signed order.

¶68

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 16/12/2024 at 16:45:52

Jitender Kumar Jain v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Kumar Jain v. the State & 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

Sunita Devi Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Smt. Rajwanti Malik & Ors. Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Amanatullah Khan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jogender Singh Vs the State Goverment of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Krishna Mahto Vs State of NCT and Anr. & Anr.

Geeta Nagar Vs the State of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Mehman Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Tahir & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Deepak Kumar Mishra Vs Priya Mishra

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs M/S Riya Garments & Anr.

Chetan Ghai Vs Nidhi Ghai

Robin Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Sunil Rai Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. through SHO Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi & Ors.

Sharif Khan Vs State Gnct of Delhi