Partial Quashing Of FIR Only Qua Accused With Whom Complainant Has Settled Matter Permissible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar quashed an FIR registered under sec. 406, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings emanating therefrom qua a man who had approached the Court seeking quashing of the same.

The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint filed against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that accused No. 2 was an old friend and well aware about financial position of the complainant.

It was alleged that in August, 2013 accused No. 2 had hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 and 3 to cheat the complainant and accused No. 1 showed him a villa which was allotted in name of accused No. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 2.33 Crores.

Out of the said amount, complainant had paid Rs. 1.25 Crores in cash to accused No. 1 and Rs. 64 Lacs to accused No. 2 by cheque. The said amount was misappropriated by accused No.1 and 2 and the deal was also not finalized. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged.

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the trial, the parties had settled the matter amicably in terms of Settlement Deed dated 23.07.2021.

The complainant admitted that he had settled the matter amicably with the petitioner and that the settlement or compromise had taken place voluntarily, without any force, pressure or coercion.

"Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/ accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the parties," the Court said.

Reliance was placed on Lovely Salhotra and Anr. vs. State, NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC Online SC 636, where the Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants-herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2— herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending.

Accordingly, the Court was of the view that since the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case pending.

The plea was thus disposed of.

Case Title: SUNIL TOMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 309

Click Here To Read Order