Gautam Hada v. State & Ors

ORDER %

30.07.2013 In the abovecaptionedtwo petitionsquashingofFIRNo.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-Bof the IPC registered at P.S.Kotla Mubarakpur,Delhi is soughton the groundthat the 50% ofthe unearned increasealongwithinterestas per the claim of respondent-DDAby the petitionerin this case whichwas to be paid in respectofplot No.A-159 andA-160in NewFriendsColony,New Delhihas beendepositedand so, thesetwo propertieshave been convertedfrom leaseholdto freeholdand the conveyancedeed has been already executed and so, no offence is made out. Upon notice, Ms. Urvi Kuthiala,Advocate,appears on behalfof Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, counsel for Respondent-DDA,and submits that instructionsfrom Mr. Ravinder Kumar, AssistantDirector, DDA, that 50% of unearned increase alongwith interest as per the claim of respondent-DDAin respect of aforesaidsubjectplots has been already deposited by petitioners and conveyance deed in respect of leased properties has been executed. . In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Courthas recognizedthe need ofamicableresolutionofdisputesin cases likethe instantone, by observingas under:- "However, certain ojfences which overwhelmingly andpredominantlybear civilflavourhavingarisen out of CrlMC. 2513&2514of2013 ^ such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basicallyto the victim and the offenderand the victim have settledall disputes between them amicably, irrespectiveof thefact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the frameworkof its inherentpower, quash the criminalproceedingor criminalcomplaintor FIR if it is satisfiedthat on the face ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convictedand by not quashingthe criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated." Sincethe commercialdispute,which is the subjectmatterofFIR in question, no longer survives as petitioners have nov^ paid 50% of unearnedincreasealongwithinterestas perthe claimofrespondent-DDA, therefore,this Courtfindsthatcontinuanceofthe proceedingsarisingout ofthe FIRin questionquapetitionerswouldbe an exercisein futility. Consequently,thesetwo petitionsare allowedand FIRNo.247/1988, under Sections 420/468/471/120-Bof the IPC registeredat P.S.Kotla Mubarakpur,Delhi and proceedingsemanatingtherefrom are quashed quapetitionersAnilHadaand GautamHadaonly. Thesetwo petitionsand the applicationsare accordinglydisposed of (SUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 30, 2013 Crl.M.C.2513&2514of2013 ^

1^. , * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2513/2013 & Crl.M.A. 9748/2013 + ANIL HADA STATE &ORS. Petitioner Through: Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocates versus Respondents Through: Mr. MukeshGupta,Additional PublicProsecutorfor respondent- State with SI Abhishek Kumar Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant Directorfor DDA-respondentNo.2 CRL.M.C. 2514/2013 & Crl.M.A.9750/2013 GAUTAMHADA Through: versus STATE & ORS. Through: Petitioner Mr. Munish Malhotra and Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocates Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutorfor respondent- State with SI Abhishek Kumar Singh Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant DirectorforDDA-respondentNo.2 CrlMC. 2513&2514of2013 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR