Crl.M.C. No.3201/2011 Page 1 of 3 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 3201/2011 % Judgment delivered on:02nd December, 2011 BHANU PRATAP & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.N.Hari Haran, Mr.Murari Kumar and Mr.Duga Dutt, Advs. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/respondent No.1 with SI Nirmal Kumar police station Lajpat Nagar, Delhi in person. Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Adv for R-2 with attorney of bank in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.1000/2004 dated 07.12.2004 case under Sections 406/420/468/ 471/434/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2/ HDFC Bank Limited. 2. He further submitted that the incident is of the year 2004 and thereafter at the time of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Crl.M.C. No.3201/2011 Page 2 of 3 they agreed to pay total amount of ` 3.90 Lacs to respondent No.2, bank which was agreed to and accepted by respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are real brothers and petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are their friends. They all worked in the company named M/s EL DOREDO Textiles Private Limited and it was required by the said company that petitioners should have credit cards, therefore, they forged Form No.16 and handed over photocopies thereof to the bank officials. Pursuant to issuance of credit cards, they used and an amount of ` 4.83 Lacs which was due to the petitioners. Respondent No.2/ bank had agreed and accepted the amount under „one time payment scheme‟ for a total sum of ` 3.90 Lacs. 4. Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ bank placed on record photocopy of the power of attorney dated 25.05.2011 in favour of Rajesh Kumar from the bank, who is present in person. 5. On instructions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that bank had already received the payment from petitioners and bank has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. 6. On the other hand, Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP submits that on completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed before learned Trial Court. 7. She further submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, then heavy costs should be imposed on the petitioners as by this Crl.M.C. No.3201/2011 Page 3 of 3 process, they have pressed the government machinery and consumed the precious time of the Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that they are from poor family and under compulsion they resorted to this type of crime. On realisation of their mistake, they want to donate an amount of ` 25,000/- each for some welfare fund. 9. Keeping the above discussion into view, FIR No.1000/2004 registered at police station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi against the petitioner and emanating proceedings thereto are hereby quashed. 10. I find force in the submission of learned APP. Keeping the submission of learned counsel for petitioners into view, I direct all the petitioners to deposit an amount of ` 1.25 Lacs in favour of “Bar Council of Delhi Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Account” within two weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be placed on the record by the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3201/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of. 12. In view of above order, Criminal M.A. No.11358/2011 (stay) renders infructuous and consequently stands disposed of. 13. Dasti. SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 02, 2011/Mk