The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR in a case of alleged extortion of more than Rs 100 crores. The crime branch of Delhi Police had registered the FIR in the year of 2008 on the complaint of Harbhajan Singh Chopra. This case is still under trial.
The complainant is a British national who migrated to England in 1995 along with his family. A few years back he came back to India and invested his life-long earned money into Hotel Fountain Head Motel Pvt. Ltd/ Hotel Claremont.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the petition moved by Baljeet Singh seeking for quashing of the FIR.
Justice Singh observed, "It is clear that this court exercises its extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. only when it is satisfied that the settlement agreement or the compromise between the victim and the offender has been freely and voluntarily executed or reached. In the present facts and circumstances, that is not so because the complainant has assailed the very legality of that agreement or compromise."
The bench further observed, "Moreover, it is not as if the allegations made by the complainant are purely civil in nature, having been investigated into and taken cognisance by the learned sessions judge. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, it would be perilous for this court to rely upon the agreement or compromise to justify quashing the FIR in question, particularly when the complainant is contesting the merits of the instant petition under section 482 of Cr. P. C."
The FIR in the instant case was registered on 22 October 2008 against Davinder Sharma, Seema Sharma, Sanjay Kriplani, Baljeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Hari Om Yadav for the alleged offence of extortion of more than Rs 100 crores by way of putting the complainant and his wife in fear of death, court order June 13, 2022 reads.
The bench also said that the offences in the question are non-compoundable and the allegations have been investigated by the investigation agency. The charge sheet has been filed and the sessions judge has taken cognizance of the same.
The fact that the complainant had earlier entered into a compromise agreement would not stand in the way of examining the allegations against the accused at trial because the complainant has subsequently disavowed the settlement agreement, alleging duress and coercion, the bench said.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the settlement agreement had been entered into by the parties.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor