Back
2005 Supreme(Del) 601
High Court Of Delhi
RACHNA GEERA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Misc.Case : 724 of 2005
Decided On : 05/20/2005
Alok Mathur, DINESH KUMAR, O.P.SAXENA
The compoundable nature of the offences, absence of criminal intent, and compromise between the parties influenced the court's decision to quash the FIR.
Headnote:
Forgery - Loan Default - The court quashed the FIR and proceedings based on a compromise agreement between the bank and the petitioners. The court found that the FIR was based on suspicion and that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, with no criminal intent at the inception of the transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners obtained a loan from the bank for a car purchase under a Hire Purchase Agreement and committed defaults in paying the instalments. The bank alleged that the vehicle may have been sold to a third party with forged consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, and the FIR was based on suspicion without any actual forged document. The bank and the petitioners had compromised, leading to the quashment of the complaint.
Issues: Allegations of loan default, suspicion of forged consent, addition of sections 420/468/471 to the FIR, and the nature of the dispute as civil or criminal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compoundable nature of the offences, absence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction, and the compromise between the parties as grounds for quashing the FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and proceedings based on the compromise agreement and the civil nature of the dispute.
( 2 ) THE complainant/respondent No. 2 bank and the petitioners have compromised. The petitioners, therefore, pray for quashment of the complaint. A Compromise Agreement has been placed on record Mr. Alok Narayan mathur, Attorney Holder of the Respondent no. 2/bank is present before the Court along with his counsel and confirms that there has been an agreement. The respondent No. 2 also consents to the quashment of the above FIR.
( 3 ) ALTHOUGH, the FIR was initially registered under Section 406/34 IPC, subsequently the sections 420/468/471 were added. It is clear from the FIR that respondent did not actually have any forged document. The FIR in respect of the forgery and using of a forged document is merely a product of suspicion. Therefore, the mention of these two sections in the FIR should not stand in the way of quashment of the complaint. The offence under sections 420 IPC is a compoundable offence, sections 406 IPC is also compoundable if the value of the property does not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees. Further , I find that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature. There is no allegation of a criminal intent at the inception of the transaction of the loan. In this situation, I see no reason why the FIR should continue. In view of the nature of the offence and the compromise between the parties, I allow this petition and quash the above FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
--- *** ---
.
