Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Deepak Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2855 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 11781 of 2022 & + Cr.M.C. 5021 of 2022 & Cr.M.A. 22068 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sangram Singh and Mr. Vikas Malhotra, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State and SI Virender Kumar, PS Model Town.
Mr. Aman Ahmad, Adv. (VC), for the Respondent-2.

The court can quash FIR and proceedings upon amicable settlement between the parties, and may impose a duty upon the petitioner as part of the quashing order.

Headnote:
Quashing - Settlement Agreement - The court quashed the FIR under Section 174A IPC after the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and directed the petitioner to plant 300 trees as a duty.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and an FIR was lodged against him under Section 174A IPC. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the respondent submitted that the matter had been amicably settled.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the amicable settlement between the parties and quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. However, the petitioner was directed to plant 300 trees as a duty.
Issues: Quashing of FIR under Section 174A IPC, Settlement Agreement, Duty of the Petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court can quash the FIR and proceedings if the parties have amicably settled their differences. The court may impose a duty upon the petitioner as part of the quashing order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, and directed the petitioner to plant 300 trees as a duty.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petitions have been filed seeking the quashing of case FIR No. 0588/2022 under Section 174A IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi, and against the judgment dated 24.05.2022 whereby the order of learned MM declaring as Proclaimed Offender was upheld.

2. Brief Facts of the present case are that the present petitioner depicted himself as the proprietor of M/s Traveir Routers, a travel agency providing air/rail tickets and holiday packages. During the course of business, the complainant made multiple bookings for the petitioner, for which several cheques were issued which were returned for the reason `Funds Insufficient'.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned MM in CC No. 1272/2018 titled as `Paras Arora vs. Deepak Rathod'. Pursuant to this an FIR under section 174A IPC was lodged against him. However, now the parties have entered into a settlement.

4. The settlement/MoU dated 20.10.2022 have been placed on record and both the parties have settled the matter on the following terms and conditions:

"1. The parties have agreed that the deed of settlement dated 23.09.2021 & 17.09.2022 executed between both the parties shall stand superseded by the present memorandum of understanding cum settlement.

2. As the First Party has already made a payment of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Only) to the Second Party, the First Party has received the remaining payment of Rs.7,00,000/- Lakh vide DD. No. 646269 dated 19.10.2022 issued by State Bank of India, Janak Puri Branch, New Delhi at the time of withdrawing the complaint case bearing no. 1272/2018 titled as Paras Arora Vs Deepak Rathod before the Court of Sh. Pranav Joshi, Ld. MM.-03, North,

3. That a quashing petition is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and In lieu of the present memorandum of understanding, the Second Party has agreed to give his No Objection to the quashing of aforesaid FIR bearing no.0588 dated 25.06.2022 under Section 174-A IPC PS Model Town and has further undertaken to withdraw all the proceedings which have arisen between the parties.

4. It is also agreed between the parties as second party has received the total settlement amount of Rs.19,00,000/- and has agreed to withdraw the complaint case U/s 138 NI Act today itself.

5. It is also agreed between the parties as second party has received the total settlement amount of Rs.19,00,000/- and nothing is remain due between the parties and the second party shall move an application/make appropriate statement and withdraw the execution petition titled as "Paras Arora vs Deepak Rathod" bearing EX. CIVIL No.1265/2019 pending in the Court of Ld. ADJ-05, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

6. Five originals of the present deed shall be executed so as to present one in each of the Courts where proceedings between the parties are pending and one each for the parties.

7. This settlement has been voluntarily arrived at between the parties with their own free will and without any force, pressure or coercion and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned above."

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has appeared through VC and submits that the matter has been amicably settled and both the parties have resolved all their differences amicably, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 0588/2022 under Section 174A IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the quashing on the ground that Section 174 of IPC deals with Non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant.

7. I consider that there would be no purpose of continuing with the proceedings. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances the present FIR No. 0588/2022 under Section 174A IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi, and all the other proceedings emanating

Click Here to Read the rest of this document