RANG NATH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecution allegations, in nutshell, are as follows: On 23.9.2006, the petitioner, as a representative of the ICICI Bank, visited the office of the complainant, namely Vogue Commercial Company, 102, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and approached her with a request to provide him. some references in order to make new ATM Cards. As the complainant had to attend a meeting, the petitioner was asked to stay back. On her returning back to the office after some time, the petitioner had already left and on checking her purse she found that her Credit as well as Debit Cards, including cash worth Rs.4,500/- were missing. On the basis of her complaint, FIR No.522/2006 under Section 379 IPC was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 26.9.2006 and was remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.2006. It may be noted at this stage that though initially the FIR was registered under Section 379 IPC, subsequently, during the course of investigations, Sections 419/411/420/468/471 IPC were also added. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned MM on 13.10.2006, the complainant stated that she is willing to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC if she is paid the cheated amount i.e. the purchases to the tune of Rs.40,000/- made by the petitioner by using the stolen Credit/Debit Cards. The aforesaid amount was paid by the petitioner, in cash, to the respondent before the learned MM, pursuant t6 which the petitioner was enlarged on bail. Hence, this petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young boy of 28 years of age and has done his MA in Vedic Literature. It is stated that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and this fact has also been noted by the learned MM while granting bail to the petitioner. It is the submission of learned counsel that if the proceedings in the instant FIR are not quashed, the same shall create a hurdle on the future prospects of the petitioner. Complainant, Ms. Smriti Gupta is also present in the Court today and is identified by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has handed over a further sum of Rs.10,000/- to her. She states that she has no objection if the proceedings are quashed since the matter stands settled between the parties and having regard to the circumstances narrated by the petitioner's counsel. An affidavit in this regard has also been filed by her.

(3.) Merely because a compromise has been arrived at between the parties would not absolve the petitioner from the guilt and quashing of the proceedings as such would not bring the desired realization for the person committing crime. David Hawkins and Joseph G. Weis in The Journal of Primary Prevention' observed that positive socialization is achieved when youths get involved in conforming activities, when they develop skills necessary to be successfully involved, and when those with whom they interact consistently reward desired behaviours. These conditions should increase attachment to others, commitment to conforming behaviour and belief in the conventional order. These bonds in-turn prevent delinquent behaviour. Rigorous evaluation of the delinquency prevention effects of the interventions, like the case at hand, is needed. Armed with these principles, while granting immunity to the petitioner, as desired by him in this petition, it would be, at the same time, in the interest of the society if the petitioner is made to render some social service. This suggestion is acceptable to learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.