NARENDER DEV RELAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing FIR No.477 registered at P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 406/420/120-B IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Writ Petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was carrying on the business of stock and share brokering under the name and style of M/s.R.K.Relan & Company, a partnership firm, which was a member of Delhi Stock Exchange. On 7.8.1998, this firm informed Delhi Stock Exchange that it was being dissolved w.e.f. 15.8.1998. On the said date, this firm was dissolved. The clients were informed about the dissolution of the firm. Delhi Stock Exchange issued notices to the creditors to submit proof of their outstanding dues/claims in pursuance of which respondents No.2 to 5 also furnished their claims, which were verified by a Default Committee of Delhi Stock Exchange headed by Mr.Justice N.N.Goswami, a retired Judge of Delhi High Court. While the Committee appointed by Delhi Stock Exchange was looking into the claims the respondent No.2 made a complaint to Delhi State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission and also to DCP (Crime), Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi.

(2.) In March, 2001, respondents No. 2 to 5 filed a writ before the High Court which was registered as WP (Crl.) No.316/2001. Vide orders dated 31.8.2001, the High Court directed DCP (Crime) to look into the matter and take action in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said orders, the aforesaid FIR was registered on 15.9.2001. On 27.9.2001, the petitioner appeared before the High Court. After hearing him, it was ordered that DCP (Crime) shall look into the contentions being raised by the petitioner. On 9.11.2001, the claims of the respondents No.2 to 5 were settled by Delhi Stock Exchange and on 24.5.2002, they accepted payments after giving undertakings.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the disputes between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5 were purely civil in nature and no offence was made out and as such, the process of criminal justice was being misused for blackmailing the petitioner, who was aged about 72 years. It was also pleaded that the facts and circumstances of the case did not disclose commission of any offence and as such, the FIR as well as the proceedings arising therefrom were liable to be quashed.