AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 315 wordsLeave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 at length today.
We have seen the order so passed by the High Court of Delhi on 19th December, 2016 whereby it has rejected the application of the appellants - herein filed by them under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the First Information Report No.520/2015, Police Station Mianwali Nagar, West Delhi registered under Sections 420/494/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings emanating therefrom.
We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognisable offence is made out against the appellants - herein. The 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. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie.
According to us, the F.I.R. in question filed against the appellants - herein by Respondent No.2 is only an after-thought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their Criminal Complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Accordingly, we find that the order so passed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, we set aside the said order of the High Court and quash the F.I.R. qua the appellants - herein.
The appeal is allowed in the afore-stated terms.