Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 1

I- 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 01^th July, 2015

+

CRL.M.C. 2586/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 9225/2015

RAJESH BAJAJ

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate with

petitioner in person

versus

STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent-

State with SI Sahdev Singh

Respondent No.2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 366/2007, under Sections 420/468/471/34 of

the IPC, registered at police station Kalkaji (District South-East), New

Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement of 25^th June,

2015 (Annexure-P-3) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which

led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties.

Notice.

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State accepts notice and submits that allegation of forgery etc.

were against father of petitioner, who has left this world. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that

Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 2

respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/first-informant

of FIR in question and he has been identified to be so by SI Sahdev Singh

on the basis of identity proof produced by him.

Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute

between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid

Memorandum of Settlement of 25^th June, 2015 (Annexure-P-3) and terms

thereof have been fully acted upon, as he has received Rs.37,05,000/- by

way of demand draft bearing No.’66507’, dated 3^rd June, 2015 drawn on

Indusland Bank, Branch New Delhi from petitioner and that the

misunderstanding, now stands cleared between the parties. Respondent

No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement of 25^th

June, 2015 (Annexure-P-3) and of his affidavit of 29^th June, 2015

supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioner

survives and so, to restore the cordiality amongst the parties, who are

related to each other, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be

brought to an end.

Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that in view

stand taken by respondent No.2, as aforesaid, the complaint filed by Late

Shri Roop Chand Bajaj, father of petitioner, against respondent no.2,

which infact has become infructuous, would be withdrawn.

Let it be so done.

In „Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303Apex

Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases

like the instant one, by observing as under:-

Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 3

to quash the criminal proceedings.”

The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a

recent judgment inNarinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra)

are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on

Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 4

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the

Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 5

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power

Crl.M.C.No.2586/2015

Page 6

question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of

aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement of 25^th June, 2015 (Annexure-P-3),

affidavit of respondent No.2 and the fact that allegations of forgery etc.

are not levelled against petitioner, I find that continuance of proceedings

arising out of the