GAURAV MITTAL & ANR. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
+ CRL. M.C. 712/2024
GAURAV MITTAL & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Aditya Gauri, Mr.Amar Vivek, Mr.Amit Rana and Mr.Mohit Lakra, Advocates alongwith petitioner No.1 in person and petitioner (through VC).
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. …. Respondents
Through: Mr.Utkarsh, APP for State with Insp. Dinesh Chandra, P.S. Khajuri Khas.
Mr.Arjun Mahajan, Mr.Raghvendra N.Budhdia and Mr.Siddhant Bajaj, Advocates with respondent No.2 (through VC).
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 810/2020 under Sections 420/120B IPC registered at P.S.: Khajuri Khas, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on complaint of Rajeev Kumar (respondent No.2) who alleged that he had bought a flat from M/s CHD Developers and made a payment of Rs.75,23,233/- in instalments but M/s CHD Developers neither gave possession of the flat nor returned back the money.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioners are Directors of M/s CHD Developers and the disputes have been amicably resolved with respondent No. 2 vide settlement deed dated 25.01.2021.
4. Learned APP for the State has filed brief status report on record and, on instructions from IO, submits that complainant/respondent No.2 is only aggrieved person in the present complaint. He also points out that a settlement earlier arrived at between the parties on 08.03.2021 was not honoured by petitioners.
5. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the 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 generalized 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.
6. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, minor incidents or offences, which dont affect the society at large or are personal in nature, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused. Reference may also be made to Sunil Tomar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1741/2021, decided on 12.04.2022 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the proceedings under Section 406/420 IPC were quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
7. Petitioner No.1 in person, petitioner No.2 (through VC) and respondent No. 2 (through VC) have been identified by Inspector Dinesh Chandra, P.S.: Khajuri Khas. 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 he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
8. Parties intend to put quietus to the proceedings which arose on account of non handing of possession of flat. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties.
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. 810/2020 under Sections 420/120B IPC registered at P.S.: Khajuri Khas, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
In the facts and circumstances, instead of imposing the costs upon the petitioners, they are directed to plant 50 saplings of trees each, which are upto 03 feet in height in the local parks in the area of P.S. Vasant Kunj after getting in touch with the competent authority (i.e. Horticulture Department of MCD/DDA/Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests & Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi) through IO/SHO, P.S. Khajuri Khas. The photographs of planted saplings alongwith report of IO/SHO concerned shall be forwarded to this Court within eight weeks. Further, the upkeep of the saplings/trees shall be undertaken by the authorities concerned. In case of non compliance of directions for planting of trees, petitioners shall be liable to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- each with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 15, 2024/v
CRL. M.C. 712/2024 Page 4 of 4