CRL.M.C./333/2014 of GULSHAN GROVER Vs THE STATE & ANOTHER

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 333/2014

Date of Decision: March 02[nd], 2016

GULSHAN GROVER

Through

..... PetitionerMr.Manoj Sharma, Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ANOTHER..... RespondentThroughMr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for the Statewith SI Sudhir, PS Keshav Puram.Mr.Satinder Singh Bawa, Adv. withMr.Gaurav Kumar Dahiya, authorisedrepresentative of respondent no.2 inperson.ThroughMr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for the Statewith SI Sudhir, PS Keshav Puram.Mr.Satinder Singh Bawa, Adv. withMr.Gaurav Kumar Dahiya, authorisedrepresentative of respondent no.2 inperson.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filedby the petitioner, namely, Sh. Gulshan Grover for quashing of FIRNo.239/2013 dated 16.08.2013, under Section 409 IPC registered atPolice Station Keshav Puram on the basis of the compromise deedarrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.2, namely,M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd., 71/3, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, NewDelhi-110059 through its Vice President V.P. Singh on 13.12.2013.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that Sh. Gaurav Kumar Dahiya (Manager-Legal), present inthe Court has been identified to be authorized representative ofrespondent no.2 in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant,namely, Tara Chand lodged the FIR in question on the allegation thaton 24.07.2013, the complainant, the team manager and the branchmanager Gulshan Grover were present at Kanhaiya Nagar Branch andat about 3:20 pm, Gulshan Grover called his brother and he took outRs. 2 lacs from the vault room and gave it to his brother. Thecomplainant apprised about the whole incident to Sh. Satvir Dahiya-Senior Vigilance Manager, who directed the complainant to report thematter to PCR.

Thereafter, the FIR in question was lodged against thepetitioner.Thepetitionerhereinmovedananticipatorybailapplication under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which was allowed. During thependency of the same, the parties reached to an amicable settlement.

4.Sh. Gaurav Kumar Dahiya, the authorized representative ofrespondent No.2, present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

compromise deed, petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 2 Lacs in twoinstallments by way of DD/Banker’s Cheque on 19.12.2013, beforethe Hon’ble Court where his bail application will be listed which willbe without prejudice to the rights of both parties. It is also agreed thatrespondent no.2 shall clear all dues if any of the petitioner withrespect to his salary and other dues and incentives within 30 daysfrom the said deed and pay the same by way of transfer in his bankaccount as per the HR policy of code of conduct policy of respondentno.2. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall not have anyobjection in grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, if the petitionerwere to comply with the compromise deed. It is further agreed that therespondent no.2 shall cooperate in getting the FIR in question quashedbefore this Court. It is further agreed that respondent no.2 shall issuerelieving letter to the petitioner along with the payment of his dues asmentioned in clause 3 of the compromise deed. It is agreed that theparties have amicably resolved all disputes out of Court and haveagreed not to file any further complaint towards each other in theCourt or before any other authority by anybody on behalf of eitherparties or elsewhere in future. Sh. V.P. Singh (Vice President) ofrespondent No.2, affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement inhis affidavit dated 10.01.2014 supporting this petition. As per theaffidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it has been stated that alldisputes with the petitioner have been settled and that respondent.2has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputesand differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now nodispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of Sh. GauravKumar Dahiya (Manager-Legal) of the respondent No.2, has beenrecorded in this regard in which he stated that respondent no.2 hasentered into compromise with the petitioner and has settled all thedisputes with him. He further stated that respondent no.2 has noobjection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ApexCourt has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61.In other words, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an

end and if the answer to the above question(s) is inthe affirmative, the High Court shall be well withinits jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in

recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh

(Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum upand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequatetreatment to the settlement between the parties andexercising its power under Section 482 of the Codewhile accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Codeis to be distinguished from the power which lies inthe Court to compound the offences under Section320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of theCode, the High Court has inherent power to quash thecriminal proceedings even in those cases which arenot compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is tobe exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlementand on that basis petition for quashing the criminalproceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such caseswould be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.While exercising the power the High Court is to forman opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and serious

offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innatureandhaveaseriousimpactonsociety.Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommitted under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by publicservants while working in that capacity are not to bequashed merely on the basis of compromise betweenthe victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercialtransactions or arising out of matrimonial relationshipor family disputes should be quashed when the partieshave resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7.The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to

prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.Sh. Gaurav Kumar Dahiya agreed to the quashing of the FIR inquestion and has stated that the matter has been settled out of the freewill of respondent no.2. As the matter has been settled andcompromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay inthe process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties arecarried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is fitcase to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to preventthe abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

8.The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provisionis meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision

of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process isabused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; toavoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provisionof Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery ofjustice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised tocircumvent the express provisions of law.

9.It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. VikramAnatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case ofInder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must beexercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when theCourt comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injusticeor there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power isnot exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10.It is well settled law that where the High Court is convincedthat the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not

affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing ofsuch proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peaceand would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time andenergy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction inentering into compromise.In certain cases, the main offence iscompoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are notcompoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose ofsecuring the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power ofquashing.In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified theexercise of powers underSection 482 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special factsand circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable.In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view thatnotwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 409 IPC is non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashingthe FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that thefacts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view ofstatement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrantsto be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to bequashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.239/2013dated 16.08.2013, under Section 409 IPC registered at Police StationKeshav Puram and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashedagainst the petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 02, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE