CRL.M.C./2987/2011 of ARUN ARORA & ANR. Vs STATE & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2987/2011

ARUN ARORA & ANR. Petitioners Through : Mr.Munish Kochhar, Adv. versus

STATE & ANR Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. Mr.Pradeep Chandel, Adv for R-2 with respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

ORDER 06.09.2011

CrI.M.A.No. 10539/20 11

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2987/2011

1. Mr.Munish Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.320/2003 dated 25.05.2003 under Section 420/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered, against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2, at police station R. K. Puram, New Delhi.

CRL.M.C.2987/2011

Page lof 6

Further submits that since the respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the present FIR against the petitioners, therefore, he does not want to pursue present FIR any further

Respondent No.2/Sanjay Purl is personally present in the Court with his learned counsel, Mr.Pradeep Chandel, Advocate who has duly identified him. In addition, he has also produced his original voter identity card bearing No.NLN0844175 issued by Election Commission of India, photocopy thereof has already been placed on the record. Original seen and returned to respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 submits that he has left with no issues qua the aforesaid petitioners in respect of present case FIR, therefore, he does not wish to pursue present case any further.

Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State has strongly opposed the quashing of the FIR and submits that present case does not faIl in the category, as per the guideline laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors Vs.

CRL.M.C.2987/2011

Page 2of6

Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604. Therefore, if any misuse of process is done, then definitely the FIR should be quashed, however present case does not fall in that category.

Apartfrom, learned APP for State has further relied upon the judgment in case of Sushil Suri Vs. CBI & Anr decided in Criminal Appeal No.110912011 on 06.05.2011 and State of A. P. Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Anr Criminal Appeal No.125212010 decided on 15.07.2010 wherein the cases which were of 'non-compoundable' nature were not quashed.

Further submits that in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Cr1.) No.898912010, Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three earlier decisions viz, B.S.Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 5CC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration, whether, the abovesaid t:hree decisions were decided correctly or not. Therefore, till the

CRL.M.C. 298712011

Page 3 of 6

outcome of the larger Bench of the Supreme urt, the present FIR may not be quashed.

In case of Sushi! Sun (supra) the funds of public exchequer were misappropriated and the cheating being committed against the public and society; whereas in the present case, the issue is between the two parties and no government institution is involved, who has been affected by the misdeed or the offence committed by the petitioners.

In the present situation, I am of the view that until, the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, reverses the settled law, till then, the three Judgments of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, hold the field. The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has taken the same view in the case of Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash Ba!krishnan & Anr. in Cr1. W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011.

Alternatively, learned APP for State submits that in the present case, Government machinery has been used and the precious time of the Courts has also been consumed, therefore, if the Court is inclined to quash the present FIR,

Page 4 of 6

CRL.M.0 298712011

then petitioners be burdened with heavy costs, which may be utilized for the purpose of the under-privileged persons.

Mr.Munish Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submits that they have no difficulty to contribute the amount for the welfare of the under-privileged persons in the society.

I place on record my appreciation to the gesture of the petitioners that they have come forward to contribute some amount for the welfare purposes.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, since the matter has already settled between the parties, and the fact that no purpose would be served, if the case would continue in the Trial Court, as the complainant has come forward in support of the petitioners not to pursue his case further. If, l do not allow this petition, then ultimately, the complainant may turn hostile or not support the case of the prosecution due to settlement. It would be sheer wastage of precious public time.

Keeping the above discussion into view and to avoid

CRL.M.C. 298712011

Page 5 of 6

futile exercise, in the interest of justice, case FIR No.320/2003 under Section 420/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered against the petitioners at police station R. K. Puram, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

15. Accordingly, I direct both the petitioners to deposit the costs of 1.50 lac each in favour of 'Deaf & Dumb School, 4 [Darya Ganj, Delhi, within two weeks, for the welfare of the ]physically challenged children. The proof thereof shall be placed on record.

Criminal M.C.No.2987/2011 is allowed in above terms.

Copy of order dasti under signature of the Court Master.

&)X~ SURESH KAIT, J

SEPTEMBERO6,2011

CRLM.C.,2987/2011

Page 6of6