Delhi High Court: In a petition instituted under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 406, 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., observed that during the proceedings, petitioner also showed remorse for his conduct and undertook not to repeat the same in future. Respondent 2 also stated that he had settled the disputes with the petitioner out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion. Thus, the Court opined that no useful purpose would be served in continuance of the proceedings and accordingly quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
In the present case, allegations in the FIR were related to fraud, forgery and fabrication of documents with respect to an immovable property. Petitioner submitted that the present FIR was registered due to misunderstanding and the parties had amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 07-03-2024. As per the settlement, complainant was now left with no claim or grievance against petitioner.
The Court observed that during the proceedings, petitioner also showed remorse for his conduct and undertook not to repeat the same in future. Respondent 2 also stated that he had settled the disputes with the petitioner out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion. Further, he had no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed. The Court opined that parties should remain bound by the statements made in the Court. The Court relied on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 403 and opined that no useful purpose would be served in continuance of the proceedings and accordingly quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
[Surinder Singh Taneja v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2981, Order dated 25-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Gurmukh Singh Arora and Vansh Bajaj, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Aashneet Singh, APP for State with WSI Sangeeta PS Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi; Manoj Singh, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
