Sandeep Singh Bhatia and Another vs State and Another

V.K. Shali

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 174/2010, u/s 467/468/471/120B, registered by Crime Branch, Delhi. The ground for quashing of the FIR is that the petitioners who are the accused persons in the aforesaid FIR have settled the matter with the respondent no. 2/complainant. The affidavit of the petitioners is on record. Both the petitioners are present in the Court and have been duly identified by their counsel. The respondent no. 2 is also present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel.

The respondent no. 2 has supported the averments made in the petition that the matter has been settled on the intervention of some of the common friends and, therefore, prays that he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings are quashed.

The learned APP has vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners are not only for an offence of cheating but also forging the documents, and using the forged documents as genuine. It has been contended by the learned APP that according to the facts of the case the complainant had actually agreed to sell the ground floor of the property in question, bearing no. 24, West Patel Nagar, Main Patel Road, New Delhi-08 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,89,37,705/- while as the petitioners, on the basis of the said documents, had made some interpolation in the documents and presented them as if the respondent no. 2 had agreed to sell the entire property for the total sale consideration of 2,89,37,705/- and it was the petitioners who had filed the suit for specific performance. It has further been contended that the signatures of the petitioners on the documents in question were examined by the Central Forensic Laboratory whereupon a report has been received that the petitioners have interpolated the documents. The learned APP has contended that the offence is u/s 467 Cr.P.C. as it entails life imprisonment, he has vehemently opposed the concession of quashing of the FIR.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of both the sides.

I fully agree with the contentions of the learned APR that the FIR normally ought not to be quashed in cases where documents have been forged, however, there are certain factors, which prompt me to quash the FIR in the instant case. In my view, this is essentially a private dispute with regard to the sale and purchase of the property and the accused petitioners have already been in custody for a period of more than a month which rids compelled them to settle the matter with the complainant and therefore, I am not prepared to accept this contention of the learned APP in the circumstances of this case.

In addition to this, the compromise purported to have been arrived at between the parties, before the Mediation Cell whereupon the suit, which had been filed by the petitioners against the respondent no. 2 has been withdrawn and the respondent no. 2/complainant has also agreed to quash the FIR against the petitioners. Needless to say, this should not be permitted without putting the petitioners in terms in as much as the state machinery is set into motion, in a matter of this nature, which is essentially a private dispute. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of the Ld. APP. Accordingly, subject to the condition that the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, with the National Legal Services Authority, within a period of 15 days, the FIR No. 174/2010, u/s 467/468/471/120B, registered by Crime Branch, Delhi and the consequent proceedings stand quashed. The money deposited with the authority shall be utilized for juvenile justice exclusively.