Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
LAL BIVHAY NATH SHAHDEO & ORS – Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR - Respondents
CRL.M.C.4881/2015
Decided On : 1-4-2016
Mr.P.S. Rai, Adv.
Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State with Inspt.Virendra Singh, PS Crime & Railway. Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Adv. with Constituted Attorney of R-2 in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the sparing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases involving amicable settlements and overwhelmingly civil character.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 409/420/120-B/34 IPC - The court discussed the settlement between the parties and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab. The court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, ultimately quashing the FIR and the proceedings against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.47/2014, which was registered based on allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant, respondent no.2, alleged that the petitioners had induced her to transfer a significant amount of money for the purchase of a plot, which turned out to be a fraudulent transaction. Subsequently, a settlement was reached between the parties, and the petitioners sought to quash the FIR and the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a settlement had been reached between the parties, and the complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the disputed amount. It was also noted that the complainant agreed to put an end to all litigations and criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, and the petitioners had paid a further amount as a full and final settlement. The court analyzed the settlement and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in similar cases.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the settlement between the parties warranted the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings under Sections 409/420/120-B/34 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. It relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the sparing exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court considered the nature of the offences, the impact on society, and the overwhelmingly civil character of the case in determining the appropriateness of quashing the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.47/2014 and the proceedings under Sections 409/420/120-B/34 IPC against the petitioners, citing the settlement between the parties and the need to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Lal Bivhay Nath Shahdeo, Sh. Lal Sanjay Nath Shahdeo and Sh. Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo for quashing of FIR No.47/2014 dated 28.04.2014, under Sections 409/420/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Crime Branch on the basis of the statement of compromise of respondent no.2 namely, Smt. Shivani Mishra on 06.12.2015 in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that Mr. Dinesh Sharma, present in the Court has been identified to be the attorney of the complainant/first-informant (respondent no.2) in the FIR in question by Inspector Virendra Singh.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the complainant is a 76 years old widow and since the death of her husband, she has been living on his pension. In 1993, Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Sahay started staying with the complainant. Later, the complainant shifted to the residence of her son at Delhi. After the complainant shifted to Delhi, Sudhanshu and his wife used to live at her house at Hazaribagh. In 2009, the complainant sold the said house. Later, Sudhanshu became friends with one Rajesh Sahdeo and introduced him to the complainant. In the month of December 2010, he showed the complainant brochures of Vrindavan Constructions Company, Jharkhand and told her that he can facilitate the complainant to purchase a three side open plot for Rs. 50 lacs. The complainant accepted the same. On 17.01.2011, the complainant transferred Rs. 10 lacs in favour of Vrindavan Constructions. Rajesh Sahdeo got the agreement made and the complainant signed on it. Thereafter, the complainant again transferred certain amounts on various dates. The transaction totaled to an amount of Rs. 41 lacs. Rajesh never gave the copy of the agreement to the complainant. During 2012, Rajesh told the complainant that due to inordinate delay in obtaining the sanction from the State Authority of Jharkhand, the said piece of land would now be transferred in 2013. Thereafter, Rajesh, kept on delaying the same on one pretext or the other. Later, the complainant came to know that there was no Company by the name Vrindavan Constructions and when the complainant tried to contact Rajesh and his partners, no one responded.
The investigation was initiated against all the three accused persons. The three accused are the partners in the said firm. During the investigation, Mr. Rajesh Sahdeo was arrested. He then paid Rs. 18 lacs to the complainant and applied for regular bail which was granted to him although there is no full and final settlement between him and the complainant w.r.t. the FIR in question. Later, the remaining amount was also paid to the complainant and the matter was settled.
4. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the statement of compromise, it has been stated that during the pendency of investigation in the FIR in question, the petitioners paid the disputed amount of Rs. 41 Lakhs to respondent no.2 and it is agreed that the same amount has been acknowledged as received by the respondent no.2. It is also agreed that the petitioners have further paid an amount of Rs. 14 Lakhs as full and final settlement of disputes between the parties. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall put an end to all the litigation(s) and that the litigations and criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in question either by way of cooperating in having the FIR and/or all the criminal proceedings disposed of and/or quashed by this Court and/or by withdrawing all the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate for the grant of bail to release petitioner no.2 and that she shall not oppose his
