Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
The court said that the “petition for quashing… such kind of an FIR in which documents of DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation), Ministry of Defence, are forged and used cannot be entertained.”
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a man who allegedly forged Ministry of Defence documents to dupe an individual of Rs 94 lakh on the pretext of dealing with a precious stone.
“Documents of DRDO, Ministry of Defence, have been forged and used in the present case by the petitioners. The offence committed by the petitioners is, therefore, serious in nature and in fact, is not only an offence between two private parties but… against the society as well,” Justice Brijesh Sethi said.
The court said that the “petition for quashing… such kind of an FIR in which documents of DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation), Ministry of Defence, are forged and used cannot be entertained.”
The court’s order came on a plea by accused Parminder Singh and others, who sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against them in connection with the cheating case registered in June 2018, as “they had settled the matter among themselves and have also paid the alleged amount”.
Complainant Bupender Kumar Kaushik had in 2018 alleged he was duped of Rs 94 lakh on the pretext of dealing with the precious stone. But the certificates establishing the authenticity of the precious stone “Rice Puller”, on being verified from the DRDO, Balasore, Odisha, found them to be forged.
Rice pullers are antique metal objects having electric or magnetic power to pull rice grains. They are made of copper alloys or iridium elements.
The accused were arrested after an FIR was registered by the Delhi Police’s Crime Branch in the case. However, they were given bail in July 2019 after they settled the matter and paid the alleged cheated amount. The complainant had made a statement saying that he has received the entire payment and has no objection if accused persons were given regular bail.
However, the court concluded that, “in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, settlement in cases where nature of offence is serious in nature cannot be quashed even if these are settled by the accused and the victim”.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram