Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
PANKAJ VERMA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE & ANR.- Respondents
CRL.M.C. 1028 of 2016 & Crl. M.A 4403 of 2016
Decided On : 05-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Paul
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, with Tej Ram
The court emphasized the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law, particularly in cases with predominantly civil character.
Headnote:
Settlement Agreement - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 420/467/468/471/406/506 IPC - The court discussed the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the principles guiding the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law, particularly in cases with predominantly civil character.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash FIR No.165/2009, which was registered based on a complaint by the respondent regarding a fraudulent land sale agreement. The matter was settled between the parties, and the respondent agreed to cooperate in getting the FIR quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter had been amicably resolved between the parties, and the respondent agreed to the quashing of the FIR. It invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed based on the settlement agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for amicable resolution of disputes and laid down principles guiding the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It highlighted the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law, particularly in cases with predominantly civil character.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.165/2009, along with the proceedings emanating therefrom, against the petitioner.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Pankaj Verma for quashing of FIR No.165/2009 dated 30.05.2009, under Sections 420/467/468/471/406/506 IPC registered at Police Station Najafgarh on the basis of Settlement Agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.2 namely, Sh. Azad Singh on 22.01.2016.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by ASI Tej Ram.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that in April 2007, the accused approached the complainant for sale of agricultural land i.e. 1/3rd share out of the total land bearing khata no. 223/185, khasra no. 27/25/2(1-16), 28/21(4-15), 22(4-16), 23(4-12), 24(4-4), 16/2(1-1), 19/2(1-12), 31(0-4), 30/1(4-16), 2(3-17), 3(4-7), 4(0-9), 9(1-7), 10(5-4), 31/4/1(0-18), 5/2(4-13), 6(1-16), 7/1(1-4), 14/2(0-2), 15/1(2-4), 6(0-19), 388(2-0) admeasuring 59 bighas 16 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village khaira, Najafgarh, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as property in question and stated that the said property is free from all encumbrances. On 21.04.2007, an agreement to sell was executed between the complainant and the accused person whereby the accused had agreed to sell the property in question for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-out of which Bayana sum of Rs. 50 Lacs was paid by the complainant. In August 2007, the complainant was shocked to learn from the residents of village Khaira that the property in question does not belong to the accused. Upon confrontation, the accused admitted the fact that the property does not belong to him and that he shall return the money to the complainant. On 19.12.2007, the accused issued a cheque bearing no.252723, drawn on Punjab National Bank, payable at all CBS branches. Upon presentment of the same in March 2008, the said cheque got dishonored and was returned with the remarks “funds insufficient”. When then complainant confronted the accused, the accused gave him life threats.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement, it is agreed that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate in getting the FIR in question quashed against the petitioner as the petitioner has already paid him the complete Bayana amount. It is agreed that the parties shall not file any case/complaint against each other in future qua the present dispute and agreement to sell dated 21.04.2007.
Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 22.01.2016. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromis
