ALOK SINGHAL vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. & ORS.
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2663/2024
ALOK SINGHAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pallav Gupta, Mr.Ravin Rao and Mr.Ayan Sharma, Advocates with Petitioner-in-person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI)& ANR….Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Bunty, PS K. N. Katju Marg.
Mr.Akshit Sawal, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 10148/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2663/2024
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 484/2016 under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at P.S.: K.N.Katju Marg. Charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC.
2. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2-in-person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on 30.06.2016 on complaint of respondent No.2 who alleged that one Sunita Singhal had handed over four cheques amounting to Rs.18,00,000/-, but the said cheques on presentation were dishonoured. When she contacted Sunita Singhal for return of the aforesaid amount, she was threatened by the petitioner, Alok Singhal, who assaulted and misbehaved with her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disputes between petitioner and respondent No.2 have been amicably settled vide Settlement Deed dated 26.08.2019, and an amount of Rs.6,85,000/- has been paid to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement in respect of disputes between the parties.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
6. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are present in person and have been identified by SI Bunty, P.S.: K.N.Katju Marg. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
7. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.
8. Parties had monetary disputes which stand amicably settled. They intend to put quietus to the proceedings and move forward in life. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 484/2016 under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC registered at P.S.: K.N.Katju Marg and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
APRIL 03, 2024/v
CRL.M.C. 2663/2024 Page 3 of 3