2022 (12) TMI 1478 - HC - Money Laundering

Non-compliance with the obligation o allotment of booked flats - During the pendency of the proceedings the parties have arrived at a settlement wherein the flats have been given to the petitioners and they are satisfied with the allotment and do not wish to prosecute the FIR any further. HELD THAT - Respondents states that all the respondents are satisfied with the settlement and do not have any dispute with the petitioners and have no objection to the FIR being quashed. It is in the interest of justice it is convincing that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. This should not be treated as a legal precedent as in this case the proceedings are quashed as the respondent has decided to put a quietus to the matter. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any further. It is a fit case for quashing. In this view of the matter there is no reason to continue the proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of FIR u/s 420/406/120B IPC | Settlement between parties | Quashing of proceedings in the interest of justice | Imposition of costs on petitioners

Analysis:
The case involved a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 49/2021 dated 12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS EOW. The FIR was related to the booking of flats by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with the petitioner in 2005, where substantial payments were made. However, due to delays in land allotment by the UP Government, the petitioner failed to fulfill obligations, leading to the FIR.

During the proceedings, the parties reached a settlement where the flats were allotted to the petitioners, and they expressed satisfaction, indicating no desire to pursue the FIR further. Both parties confirmed the settlement was voluntary without any coercion. The respondents, through their representative, stated satisfaction with the settlement and had no objections to quashing the FIR.

The judge, considering the interest of justice, accepted the settlement and decided to quash the proceedings. It was emphasized that this decision should not set a legal precedent, as the quashing was based on the parties' agreement to resolve the matter amicably. The judge found it unnecessary to continue the criminal proceedings, deeming it a fit case for quashing.

However, acknowledging the time wasted by police and judicial resources due to the case, the judge imposed costs on the petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs. 50,000 each to DHCLSC for counseling POCSO victims, while Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were instructed to pay the same amount to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. The payment was to be made within four weeks, with receipts to be submitted to the court.

With these directions, the FIR No. 49/2021 dated 12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC was quashed, and the petition was disposed of, concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.