High Court can quash FIRs in settled disputes even for serious offenses if continuation serves no purpose and leads to abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforesaid two Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) on behalf of the Petitioners/Amit Goyal and Dharmender Yadav seeking quashing of FIR No. 229/2013 under Sections 420 /467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar.

Case of the Complainant/Respondent No.2:

2. The brief facts of the case as per Respondent No.2/Complainant, Baldev Sapra, are that he has been manufacturing pressure cookers in his factory at Uttam Nagar, Delhi, for over 25 years. During this time, he developed close relations with local residents, including Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, whom he had known for nearly 20 years. It is stated that about 1.5 years prior to the Complaint, the Complainant shifted his factory to Hastsal Industrial Area. Even after the shift, Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, continued to visit him frequently.

3. It is stated that Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav introduced the Complainant to one, Deepak Goel, resident of Rohini, a property dealer, who along with his associates and his wife, Mrs. Chanchal Goel, regularly visited the Complainant and gradually gained his trust. The Complainant was shown Deepak Goel’s office, staff including Sushil Sati, Mukesh Meena and Neha), documents, and properties, all of which created an impression of a well-established and genuine property business.

4. It is further stated that in October 2011, Deepak Goel, with assurances from Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, proposed the sale of his residential property at Pocket H-32, Sector-3, Rohini. Upon inquiring about the sale, Deepak Goel stated that he would soon be moving out of this property to a Kothi. Trusting the representations of Deepak Goel and assurances from Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, the Complainant agreed to purchase the ground floor and third floor with roof rights for a total consideration of Rs. 1.38 crore. At the moment, the Complainant also gave Rs.15 Lakh as advance amount/bayana. On 15.10.2011, the Complainant further gave them Rs.30 Lakh in cash. After that on 20.10.2011, the Complainant gave Rs.25 Lakh in cash. Furthermore, on 24.10.2011, the Complainant handed over the balance payment of Rs.38 Lakh to Deepak Goel in front of Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav through Cheque No. 750706 drawn on ICICI Bank Rajouri Garden.

5. It is further stated that the Complainant along with Deepal Goel, Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav and their associated went to the Sub- Registrar’s office where signatures, thumb impressions, and formalities were completed. Sale deeds were later handed over. The Sub-Registrar confirmed about the money transaction from the Complainant and Deepak Goel.

6. Thereafter, upon reaching the office of Deepak Goel, the Complainant handed over the entire previous chain of documents. There, Deepak Goel got the Complainant introduced through his phone, to one Amit Goel who claimed himself Deepak Goel’s brother, who confirmed that the papers are absolutely fine and Partition deed has been made between the two brothers.

7. Amit Goel confirmed that First floor and Second floor, are in his name, while the Ground floor and Third floor with roof right, is in the name of Deepak Goel.

8. Subsequently, Deepak Goel and Dharmender Yadav persuaded the complainant to purchase four additional floors belonging to Yamini Aggarwal, Deepak Goel’s sister-in-law, in Rohini. The total consideration ran into several crores. The Complainant paid large sums as earn