AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 571/2005 dated 28.9.2005 under Sections 420/468/471 /120-B, IPC, Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi. I may say at the outset that this FIR was registered at the instance of respondent "No. 2 which is a private limited company alleging that the petitioners had defrauded and cheated respondent No. 2 company and in the process some documents were also allegedly forged. As far as petitioners and respondent No. 2 are concerned, they have arrived at a settlement. The claim of respondent No. 2 is settled by the petitioners. Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.4.2006 is filed recording this settlement and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has no grievance against the petitioners. However, learned Counsel for the respondent states that keeping in view the allegations made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR is lodged, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to quash his complaint. Before appreciating the submission of learned Counsel, few facts may be taken note of.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 was working as an accountant with Shelters Auto Loan Department of respondent No. 2 company. Petitioner No. 3 is an employee of petitioner No. 1 who is running Computer Shop in the name of M/s. Hi-tech Infovision, Nehru Place. The allegation in the complaint is that the three petitioners entered into criminal conspiracy of forgery and cheating and cheated respondent No. 2 with more than Rs. 12 lacs. In the complaint it is stated how the fraud was committed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Inspector of Police, CBI v. B.Raja Gopal and Others, 2003 SCC (Criminal) 1238, in support of the proposition that merely because there was a compromise reached between the Bank of petitioners and the accused and the accused paid disputed amount to the bank, it was not necessary to quash the criminal proceedings.'No doubt, there is no dispute about this proposition. It goes without saying that in each case on the basis of the facts therein, this High Court has to see whether to exercise discretionary jurisdiction or not and the Court is to consider as to whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue.