* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 21.02.2022
% Pronounced on : 12.04.2022
+ CRL. M.C. 1741/2021
SUNIL TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, Adv.
Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No. 549/2016, under Sections 406/420/34 IPC,
registered at Police Station Dwarka, South West District, Delhi, and all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the instant case was registered on
the complaint of Sh. Satyender Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) S/o Sh.
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
Sukhbir Singh R/o 2B/182, Awas Vikas Colony Baraut, District Baghpat
U.P, filed against Sunil Dev, Sunil Tomar (Petitioner herein) and Sunil
Sharma. In the said complaint it is alleged that accused No. 2 is an old
friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant. In
August, 2013 accused No. 2 hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused
No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a
villa bearing No. E 100, Raman Vihar Society which was allotted in
name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores. Out
of the said amount, complainant had paid Rs. 1,85,70,000/- (Rs. 1.25
Crores in cash to accused No. 1 and Rs. 64 Lacs to accused No. 2 by
cheque). The said amount was misappropriated by accused No.1 and 2
and the deal was also not finalized. Thereafter, the instant FIR No.
549/2016, under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station
Dwarka, South West District, Delhi was lodged.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the
pendency of the trial, the parties have settled the matter amicably in
terms of the MOU/Settlement Deed dated 23.07.2021. Copy of the said
settlement is placed on record.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no disputes,
claims or grievances that now remain pending between the petitioner and
the respondent No. 2 and that disputes between the petitioner and the
respondent No. 2 are of a private nature, and as they have been amicably
settled, the FIR dated 21.10.2016 against the petitioner and all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
5. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2 were present in Court
and they have been identified by the IO. I have interacted with the parties
and they submitted that they have settled their disputes. Respondent No.2
admits that he has settled the matter amicably with the petitioner. He
further submits that the settlement/compromise has taken place
voluntarily, without any force, pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2
submitted that nothing remains to be adjudicated further between them
and he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the
petitioner.
6. Learned APP for the State submitted that for the non-cooperation of
complainant/ respondent No. 2, the instant case has been submitted
before concerned Ld. MM as closure and the said closure report is
pending consideration. It is further submitted that in view of the
settlement, the State has no objection if the FIR in question be quashed
qua the petitioner.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana reported as 2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the
judgment titled as Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], that this Court with reference to
Bhajan Lal' case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the
court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not
be inflexible or laying rigid formula to be followed by the court. Exercise
of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these
powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes
necessary of exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such
powers
8. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while
exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the
High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear
in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest
of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of
the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special
facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.
9. Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/
accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the
matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the
petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed
by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled
between the parties. Reliance can be placed on Poonam Khanna vs.
State & Ors in Crl.M.C.No. 3690/2016 Dated 30.01.2018.
10. In Lovely Salhotra and Anr. vs. State, NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC
Online SC 636), in paragraph 4 and 7, it is observed and held as under:
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
“4. We have taken into account the fact of the
matter in question as it appears to us that no
cognizable offence is made out against the
appellant-herein. The High Court was wrong in
holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in
part and it ought to have appreciated the fact
that the appellants-herein cannot be allowed to
suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by
Respondent No.2— herein only on the ground
that the investigation against co-accused is still
pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned
Magistrate has opined that no offence is made
out against co- accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 prima
facie.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
High Court and quash the FIR qua the
appellants- herein.”
11. In Vijay Kumar Gupta V. State, Government of NCT of Delhi in
Crl.M.C. No.2289/2013 Dated 09.03.2017, in paragraph 7, it is observed
and held as under:
“7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the petitioners have
paid the loan/settlement amount to the
Respondent No.2 and nothing remains to be
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
adjudicated further, to remove the hurdle in the
personal life of the present petitioners for
leading better and peaceful life and to meet the
ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to quash
the FIR No.107/2003, under Section
406/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860,,
registered at Police Station – Parliament Street,
Delhi qua against the petitioners, namely Vijay
Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Sharma and Vinod
Chaudhary only to the extent of their role in
commission of the alleged offence.”
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the facts and
circumstances of this case, since the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case
pending. It will be nothing but abuse of the process of law.
Consequentially, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 549/2016, under
Sections 406/420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dwarka, South
West District, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand
quashed qua the petitioner herein.
13. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 12, 2022/AK
CRL. M.C. 1741/2021 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
KANT MENDIRATTA
Signing Date:12.04.2022
16:39:42
