IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL M.C. NO.3015 OF 2012 Decided on : 4th January, 2013 KRANTA AAKASH @ PRAKASH KUMAR Through: Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate. Petitioner Versus THE STATE & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.60/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Tuglak Road. 2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have arrived at a compromise as a consequence of which the petitioner is purported to have paid a sum of `41,000/- to respondent No.2 vide demand draft No.001084 dated 25.8.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was received from Munender Singh, s/o Sh. Ram Swroop Singh, r/o Village Ruppra, Post Office Jaitpur, District Agra (U.P.) that on 20.6.2012, accused Prakash Kumar @ Akash Kumar, who claimed himself to be an employee of Indigo Air Lines, came to shop No.17-B, Khan Market, New Delhi with the name of Kranta Aakash and offered membership of Indigo Air Lines to the owner of Dristi Optical and received a cheque bearing No.0159110, HDFC Bank, Khan Market for an amount of `1,000/- and then changed the value of the said cheque, both in figure and words, to `41,000/- by prefixing digit 4 before 1,000/- and forty before one thousand only and withdrew an amount of `41,000/- from HDFC Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi.
Hence, the aforesaid FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the address of the mobile number 8802559502, which was mentioned on the visiting card provided by the accused to the shop owner, was ascertained as K-11, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The above address was got verified but was found to be fake. On 8.7.2012, an information was received from Police Station Karol Bagh that a person, namely, Prakash Kumar @ Akash Kumar, s/o Subodh Kumar, r/o D-15, Pandav Nagar, Delhi was arrested in FIR No.114/2012, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, who disclosed his involvement in Khan Market cheque fraud case of 20.6.2012. The accused Prakash Kumar @ Akash Kumar was interrogated in Tihar Jail where he was in judicial custody in FIR No.114/2012 where he disclosed that on 20.6.2012, he went to shop No.17-B, Khan Market and received a cheque of `1,000/- from the accountant of the shop and changed the value of that cheque to `41,000/- and withdrew the said amount from HDFC Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The accused/petitioner was formally arrested on 17.7.2012 and produced before the court of Sh. Jay Thareja, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. The specimen signature and handwriting of the petitioner was obtained, who refused to join TIP. On 19.7.2012, he was produced in the court after one day police remand and was sent to judicial custody. The petitioner is stated to be previously involved in FIR No.109/2011, under Section 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Kamla Market, FIR No.7/2012, under Section 420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Parliament Street, FIR No.56/2012, under Sections 419/420/467/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road and FIR No.114/2012, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh. The accused is stated to be still in judicial custody. The investigations have not been finally concluded and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. The present petition has been filed with a view to quash the aforesaid FIR on the basis of purported compromise having been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 through Vikash Kumar, brother of the present petitioner, who is claiming himself to be conversant with the facts of the case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 as a consequence of which an amount of `41,000/-, which is purported to have been withdrawn by the present petitioner from the bank account of the respondent No.2, has been paid to him by way of a draft and, therefore, the dispute having been settled,
the present FIR may be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same pending. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on three case titled Abhipra Commodity Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.; 2012 (2) JCC 1115; Deepa Sharma & Anr. vs. State & Anr.; 2012 (3) JCC 1776 and Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.; AIR 2008 SC 1968. 5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings on the ground that the case which has been registered against the petitioner is not only for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC but also for forging a document and using the forged document as genuine. Therefore, it has been contended by him that the petitioner does not deserve sympathy of this court in getting the aforesaid FIR quashed as it is not a case which by any set of imagination can be said to be of civil nature or a dispute of personal nature because the petitioner had forged a document and thereafter used the forged document as genuine. The learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on a case titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.; 2012 X AD (S.C.) 37 wherein the Apex Court has examined the entire case law with regard to the quashing of the FIR and compounding the offences and thereafter came to the conclusion that compounding of an offence is different than the quashing of the FIR and the power of quashing of an FIR in a non-compoundable offence is an inherent power with the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has to be exercised on certain set principles. In this regard, it has observed that Section 482 Cr.P.C., by its very language, suggests that it saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being the superior court to prevent abuse of the processes of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has also been observed that this power has to be exercised depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and no straight jacket formula regulating the exercise of this inherent power can be laid down. In this regard, it has also taken note of the fact that the court may quash criminal proceedings having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and the victim is settled although the offences are not compoundable by observing that continuation of criminal proceedings may be an exercise in futility. It has also noted the fact that crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or the victim has been paid compensation. It is in this background, the court has observed that the serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity or
other offences of mental depravity or offence under Prevention of Corruption Act are not permitted to be compounded meaning thereby that the Apex Court has put its seal of approval that the exercise of power laid down under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding or even for quashing must be exercised to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent the abuse of the processes of any court and this fact has to be ascertained by the court from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. On the basis of this pronouncement, the leaned APP has vehemently opposed the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have gone through the record. The present petition is based on the very fact that the petitioner and the respondent No.2, who is the complainant, have settled their disputes as a consequence of which the petitioner has agreed to pay or has paid a sum of `41,000/- to the respondent No.2 by way of a demand draft drawn on HDFC Bank. However, in my view, merely because the demand draft for a sum of `41,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, does not form a ground for quashing of the FIR because the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, by any set of imagination cannot be said to be either a civil dispute arising out of some commercial transaction or a dispute personal in nature. I would have said that yes, the dispute is of a civil nature if it was a simple case of taking the money and then misappropriating it or taking the money by misrepresentation which would have meant, in other words, had it been only a case of cheating or a breach of trust or a criminal misappropriation, one could have perhaps considered that yes, it falls within the parameters of the offences wherein the dispute having been settled, the court should permit the parties to compound the offence and quash the FIR but that is not the position in the instant case. The fact of the case shows that the petitioner had gone to a shop in Khan Market, which is admittedly a posh area, and represented to the petitioner that he is an employee of Indigo Air Lines and that he would get membership of the said airlines to the respondent No.2/complainant and in this regard, he obtained a cheque for a sum of `1,000/- from him. After having obtained the said cheque, the petitioner manipulated the same and added the number/word four to the same, both in words as well as in digit, and enchashed a sum of `41,000/- from his account meaning thereby that the petitioner had not only forged a document but had also used the said forged document as genuine in withdrawing the amount from the account of the complainant. This clearly shows a criminal proclivity of a man. The first offender can never have the
courage of going to such an extent of forging a cheque by manipulating and then withdrawing money on it. It seems that the petitioner must have been doing this earlier also and it is only now that he has been caught. Such like persons, if they are given discretion of the court in quashing the FIR, I think, it will not be for securing the ends of justice or for stopping the abuse of the processes of court on the contrary, it will be only giving impetus not only to the petitioner but to other such like-minded persons that they can get away by committing serious offences of the nature which the petitioner has committed. 7. I have considered the cases on which the petitioner has relied upon including the judgment of the Apex Court and in all such cases, the court has formed a definite opinion that the dispute between the parties was more or less emanating either from a commercial transaction or was a dispute of a personal nature while as said tentacles were absent in the instant case. I, therefore, feel that having regard to the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh s case (supra), I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and quash the FIR in question. 8. The petition is totally misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. JANUARY 04, 2013 Sd/- V.K. SHALI, J.