Devender Singh v. State & Anr

S. MURALIDHAR, J May 23, 2008 sb

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1304/2004 DEVENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Shandilya, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Pawan Behl, APP. CRL.M.C. 6389/2006 & CRL.M.A. NO. 10788/2006 RAJESH TRIVEDI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kawal Nain, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Pawan Behl, APP. CRL.M.C. 6600-04/2006 & CRL.M.A. No. 11138/2006 J.K.SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kawal Nain and Mr. Prem Chandan, Advocates. versus CBI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Standing Counsel for CBI. Mr.Pawan Behl, APP. Date of decision : 23rd May, 2008 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1.1 These three cases involve a common question of law concerning the scope of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to quash the criminal proceedings where the offences involved include that of forgery and use of forged documents as defined under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). In each of these petitions filed by the accused, the quashing of the proceedings is sought on the basis that their disputes with the complainants have been settled. This plea is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that there is evidence in each of the cases in the form of a report by the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") to prove the offences independent of the evidence of the complaint. It is urged that the powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash the proceedings involving such non- compoundable offences. 1.2 In Jugal Kishore Sharma v. State 2008 (1) JCC 754 where a similar question arose, this Court refused to quash the proceedings. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in these matters attempted to distinguish the said judgment by pointing out that it did not refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts. Accordingly, these cases were heard at length over several days and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Before dealing with the contentions of the parties, the relevant facts in each of the cases require to be noticed. Background Facts Crl Misc Case No. 1304/2004(Devender Singh v. State) 2.1. The facts relevant for this petition are that an FIR No. 376 of 2000 was registered at Police Station Azad Nagar pursuant to a complaint dated 29th May, 2000 by one Mr. K.D. Tandon who was running the business in the name and style of Krishna Motors at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi. Mr. Tandon stated that he got introduced to the Petitioner Mr. Devender Singh @ Babboo during his visit to the Azadpur Mandi for work. The petitioner assured Mr. Tandon that if moneys were invested with him, the petitioner would pay interest well above the normal rate. He also assured Mr.Tandon of the safety of the money by representing that his father and he himself were in the business of financing transporters had their own trucks and enjoying a good reputation. Mr. Tandon was shown post dated cheques issued by certain transport companies as well as invoices and transport documents. On the basis of this assurance, Mr. Tandon and his relatives invested a large sum with the petitioner for which they were issued receipts by the petitioner. 2.2 After Rs. 16 lakhs invested by Mr. Tandon and his relatives was unable to be realized,they realized that they had been cheated. When Mr. Tandon went to the address given in the receipt purportedly issued by one of the transport companies, he found that no such company was in existence. It also transpired that the cheques issued in favour of the complainant by the transp