RAMA SARAF Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek an appropriate order under Section 482. Though the claim is formulated in such a manner as to indicate that it is a review of the previous order dated 06.01.2005 in respect of FIR No.174/98, made by this Court, yet counsel contends that the relief claimed is not review but something more fundamental as according to the petitioner the order quashing the FIR was obtained by misrepresentation and suppressing material facts.

(2.) The facts for deciding this case are briefly as follows. The respondents 3 to 5 were named in a first information report for commission of offences under sections 406/420 IPC. The allegation was that they, along with the other accused had obtained amounts from Chaman Lal, after inducing him, with a representation that they would yield over 3% per month return. It was alleged in the FIR, that the informant/complainant had, on the basis of the said representation deposited Rs.1 lakh and that later upon being asked, the amounts were not refunded.

(3.) The informant/complainant who initiated the FIR apparently entered into compromise and settled his disputes with the company in question, i.e. with M/s. Fintra Systems Limited which was also the accused in the proceedings; Sunil Shakt respondent No.4 in these proceedings was a party to the said compromise deed. Based on the said document, the complainant Chaman Lal moved a proceeding under Section 482 being Crl. M.No.2922/2004 In that petition the respondents No.3 to 5, were impleaded as respondents No.2 to 4. The prayer was that since the parties had settled the dispute, the FIR and all further proceedings ought to be quashed.