JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Aruna Suresh, J.—A complaint was lodged by complainant respondent No. 2 Ms. Champak Bagla at Police Station C.R. Park on 30.12.2004 against the petitioner Rajeev Grover and Smt. Mamta Grover for having allegedly cheated her for more than Rs. 66,00,000 on the pretext that they would invest her money in the best of companies to get her high return of profit. On the complaint of the complainant inquiry continued for about two years but no FIR was registered. Complainant wrote another letter on 11th December, 2005 to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW). It was after the receipt of this letter that FIR No. 3/2006, under Sections 506/406/ 420/120B/34 IPC was registered at Police Station C.R. Park on 5.01.2006.

2. Investigation continued for some time and charge-sheet was filed in the court on 27.1.2008 i.e. after two years of the registration of the FIR. During the investigation, complainant compromised with the petitioners and received a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 in full and final settlement of her claim. As per the settlement-cum-receipt, complainant/respondent No. 2 received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 on 29.1.2006 in cash receipt and another sum of Rs. 15,00,000 on 18.3.2006 against receipt. Out of this amount of Rs. 15,00,000 she received Rs. 5,00,000 in cash and remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000 by way of four cheques drawn on UCO Bank.

3. After the matter was compromised between the parties present petition was filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. Offence under Section 406/420 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the court. Offence under Section 506 IPC can be compounded by the parties without the permission of the court if offence of criminal intimidation falls in 1st part of Section 506 IPC. Since offence under Section 506 IPC as made out in the FIR is non-compoundable, the present petition was filed.

4. Since the matter had been compounded by the parties, it would have been a futile exercise for the trial court to continue with the trial of the case, especially, when it took about one year for the prosecution agency to hold preliminary inquiry before registration of the case and two years to complete investigation after the registration of the case for filing the challan in the court.

5. Respondent No. 2 also filed an affidavit thereby giving an undertaking to make her statement in the court for quashing of the FIR. This petition was filed on 22nd March, 2006 soon after the parties compounded the offence and for one reason or the other petition could not be decided. At the instance of the complainant, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre but as per the Mediation Report, mediation also failed as despite several notices sent to the parties and their respective counsels nobody appeared before the mediator since 7th April, 2008. The mediation failed because it was non-starter. In other words, the parties never joined the proceedings before the mediator. This clearly indicates that parties stuck to their compromise and after having received Rs. 20,00,000, complainant lost interest in further litigation.

6. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently argued that FIR cannot be quashed because during investigation of the case it was revealed to the investigating agency that petitioners had also cheated Ms. Purnima Chawla and her husband for a sum of Rs.17,00,000 in the similar manner. Admittedly, he did not file any vakalatnama on behalf of Ms. Purnima Chawla or her husband as Ms. Purnima Chawla had since expired. It is pertinent to mention here that in the letter written by complainant Champak Bagla on 11.12.2005 she also enclosed her own statement informing the Investigating Officer that she met Mr. Pawan Chawla, husband of Ms. Purnima Chawla (deceased, date of death not disclosed) who informed her that he and his wife had also been cheated by the petitioners. This fact was also mentioned by her in th