Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 386 (DEL)

ASHOK DOGRA v. STATE

2009-04-08

REVA KHETRAPAL

body2009
Judgment REVA KHETRAPAL, J. 1.This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 161/01 registered at R.K.Puram, P.S. for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC. 2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid First Information Report as reflected from the said Report itself are that on 16.02.2001, the complainant–respondent No.2 went to the Cards Services Division of Standard Chartered Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for settlement of his SCB Card No. 5543748080019612. There he met one Mr. Deep Pal Singh, Assistant Manager, Customer Assistance, who agreed to settle the said card on a payment of Rs. 27,500/-as against the current balance of Rs. 34,170.20. The payment was to be made through cheque. As respondent No.2 was not carrying the cheque, he went home to collect the same. On reaching home, the respondent no.2 received a telephone call from one Mr. Rajesh who lured him to settle the card for Rs. 22,000/-, i.e., Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.2,000/-as service charges as against Rs.27,500/-as offered by Mr. Deep Pal Singh provided it was paid in cash. He was also informed that the said Mr. Rajesh worked with Mr. Deep Pal Singh. He (the respondent No.2) was asked to be ready with the cash which was to be given to Mr. Kaushal on the following day and the latter would hand over to him the settlement paper and cash receipt. On the following day, i.e., on 17.02.2001, in the evening, Mr. Kaushal came to the respondent No.2’s house, and the respondent No.2 after verifying that his identity card was duly endorsed by the Standard Chartered Bank handed him the sum of Rs.22,000/-in cash. Mr. Kaushal then handed over the settlement of account letter and receipt dated 17.02.2001 for Rs.20,000/-. It was only after a week that he came to know that he had been cheated when the bank called him to immediately deposit Rs. 35,043/-being an overdue demand. On verification the Bank Manager confirmed that the signature on the settlement letter was not that of Mr. Deep Pal Singh nor the receipt for Rs.20,000/-was issued by any bank personnel, and that both the documents were forged and the respondent No.2 had been duped of Rs.22,000/-in connivance with the bank employees. 3. 35,043/-being an overdue demand. On verification the Bank Manager confirmed that the signature on the settlement letter was not that of Mr. Deep Pal Singh nor the receipt for Rs.20,000/-was issued by any bank personnel, and that both the documents were forged and the respondent No.2 had been duped of Rs.22,000/-in connivance with the bank employees. 3. The respondent no.2 thereupon lodged an FIR on 15.03.09 and on the same day the petitioners were arrested and send to judicial custody, but were granted bail by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge with the direction to pay the alleged cheated amount of Rs. 22,000/-, which counsel for the parties affirm has since been paid by the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 has since then entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has given an affidavit stating his willingness to cooperate in the quashing of the FIR, keeping in view of the future prospects of the petitioners. This is affirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. .5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the following judgments of this court wherein FIRs alleging offences which under the scheme of the Code are non-compoundable were quashed by this Court in the light of a compromise between the parties: 1. Neelu Gupta & Ors. vs State 2007 [3] JCC 1938 2. Ajay Kumar & Ors. vs. State & Anr. 2006 [2] JCC 1073 3.Shri Krishan K. Seth & Ors. vs. State & Others 114 (2004) DLT 423 4. G. Udayan Dravid & Ors. vs. State & Others 2007 [1] JCC 127 5. Ankit Sachdeva vs. State & Anr. 2009 [1] JCC 56 6. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2008 [4] JCC 2311 to urge that it has been categorically held in the said case by the Honble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decision in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 , that Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit or effect the power of the court to quash criminal proceedings or FIRs or complaints even in the case of non-compoundable offences. [See also Manoj Sharma Vs. State 2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)]. 7. [See also Manoj Sharma Vs. State 2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)]. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled position of law and the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR in the instant case as dragging on of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would be a futile exercise and a gross wastage of the precious time of the Court at the expense of the public exchequer. Accordingly, FIR No. 161/01 registered at Police Station R.K.Puram against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 and Crl. M.A. 9171/2007 stand disposed of accordingly.