CRL.M.C./4344/2015 of KRISHAN MEHTA & ANR Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4344/2015

Date of Decision : March 03[rd], 2016KRISHAN MEHTA & ANR..... PetitionersThroughMr.Sushil Bajaj, Adv. with Mr.TarunDua, Adv.ThroughMr.Sushil Bajaj, Adv. with Mr.TarunDua, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.K.K. Ghai, APP for the State withSI Ramkesh Meena, PS ParliamentStreet.Mr.Ravi Mehta, Adv. with AuthorisedRepresentative of Respondent No.2 inperson.ThroughMr.K.K. Ghai, APP for the State withSI Ramkesh Meena, PS ParliamentStreet.Mr.Ravi Mehta, Adv. with 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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Krishan Mehta and Sh. Shyam Mehtafor quashing of FIR No.34/2015 dated 12.02.2015, under Section 420IPC registered at Police Station Parliament Street on the basis of thesettlementagreementarrivedatbetweenthepetitionersandrespondent no.2, namely, M/s Sterling Component (India) having itsregistered office at 4348/4C, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 through its authorized representative Mr. Dharmendra Saini

on 14.07.2015.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that Mr. Dharmendra Saini, the authorized representative ofrespondent no.2 present in the Court, has been identified to be thecomplainant/first informant in the FIR in question by his counsel.3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainantlodged the FIR in question on the allegation that in the year 2011, thecomplainant met Mr. Rajiv Duggal who was the then manager of theaccused company. He arranged meeting with Mr. Krishna Mehta,MD of Energetic Lightning Pvt. Ltd. who told the complainant that heis running the business along with various other companies andexpressed his desire to expand their business in north India andinduced the complainant that if he does business with him then itwould be very profitable for him. The complainant’s company thenstarted doing business of supply of the CFL components to theaccused company from June 2011. In the month of April/May 2012,the accused company was given supplies worth Rs. 44,73,555/- andthey promised to make the payment by the end of June 2012. Theaccused-petitioner no.1 told the complainant that there company is

going through bad phase and thus they are unable to pay them. Lateron, the petitioner no.1 bluntly asked the complainant not to visit theiroffice. The petitioners kept on demanding more time for making thepayment of all the dues. After some time, the petitioners bluntlyrefused to pay back the money which was due.

The complainant filed criminal complaint No. 65/1/2014under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM., Patiala House Courts,New Delhi. The IO filed status report and indicated that the matterbeing civil in nature, there is no cognizable offence. Subsequently,during the pendency of the proceedings, the IO registered the FIR inquestion. Pending the investigation, the petitioners and respondentno.2 arrived at an amicable settlement.

4.Mr. Dharmendra Saini, authorized representative of respondentno.2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between theparties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement agreement,it is agreed between the parties that petitioner no.1 shall, on behalf ofhimselfandpetitionerno.2,payanaggregateamountofRs.45,00,000/-only(hereinafterreferredtoas“settlementconsideration”) to respondent no.2 against its total claim as full and

final settlement between the parties. The settlement considerationshall be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 14.07.2015. It isalso agreed that upon execution of this settlement, respondent no.2’sentire claim against the petitioners shall stand fully satisfied and thatrespondent no.2 shall not be entitled to any further amount on accountfrom the petitioners or initiate any action against the petitioners. It isalso agreed that upon receipt of the settlement consideration therespondent no.2 shall immediately file an application before theconcernedjudicialforuminrespectofitspendingcriminalcomplaint(s) seeking withdrawal/quashing of the said action(s)against the petitioners. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shallnot initiate any civil/criminal action for recovery or winding upproceedings against the petitioners, petitioners’ company and/or itsdirectors. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall withdraw itsclaim as raised in company petition No. 12 of 2015 pending beforethis Court and seek appropriate consequential directions. It is alsoagreed that the instant settlement between the parties shall not bedeemed as an admission of any liability on behalf of the respondentno.2 and/or petitioner no.1 and/or petitioner no.2 in respect of the

disputes. It is also agreed that the instant settlement is being arrived atto buy peace and to settle the disputes. Mr. Dharmendra Sainiaffirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes anddifferences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now nodispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of Mr.Dharmendra Saini, authorized representative of respondent No.2, hasbeen recorded in this regard in which he stated that respondent no.2has entered into compromise with the petitioners and has settled allthe disputes with them. 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 in

cases 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 anend 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 SCC

466. 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 seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innatureandhaveaseriousimpactonsociety.Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been

committed 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 toprevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.Mr. Dharmendra Saini, authorized representative of respondent no.2,agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that thematter has been settled out of respondent no’s.2 own free will. As thematter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there wouldbe an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legalproceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdictionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law andto 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 provisionof law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process isis meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provisionof law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is

abused 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 notaffect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of

such 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 that

notwithstanding the fact that according to Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., theoffence under Section 420 IPC is an offence compoundable with thepermission of the Court, 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 Mr. Dharmendra Saini, the FIR in questionwarrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereuponneed to be quashed.

12.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.34/2015 dated12.02.2015, under Section 420 IPC registered at Police StationParliament Street and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 03, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE