CRL.M.C./4667/2015 of SANJIT SHASTRI & ORS Vs THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4667/2015

Date of Decision: March 02[nd], 2016SANJIT SHASTRI & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr.Satish Tamta, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.SI Vijay, PS Lajpat Nagar.Mr.Puneet Kumar Gupta, 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. Sanjit Shastri, Sh. Vijay Gupta, Sh.Himanshu Thakkar and Sh. Ravinder Deshmukh for quashing the FIRNo.665/1998 dated 11.08.1998, under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar on the basis ofthe compromise arrived at in the Delhi High Court Mediation &Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi between thepetitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, M/s. FS AdvertisingLtd., having its registered office at 14, Community Centre, East of

Kailash, New Delhi-110065 through its authorized representative Sh.Puneet Kumar Gupta on 12.10.2015.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, present in the Court hasbeen identified to be the authorized representative of respondent no.2in 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 the petitioners wereserving as Senior Vice President (Projects and New Media),Executive Vice President and General Manager (Advertising Sales)with M/s Time and Space Media Entertainment Promotion Ltd. T&Shad regular business dealings with M/s F.S. Advertising. FSAappointed T&S as “Agency on record” for its various clients. On30.04.1998, FSA filed complaint before the Court of MM, NewDelhi making allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgeryetc. against the petitioners.

On the said complaint, an investigation was directed underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the ld. MM and accordingly FIR inquestion was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the

charge sheet was filed by the IO on 09.03.1999. Before filing thecharge sheet, the accused Abbi Karun was declared P.O. and duringtrail the main accused Manu S Kamaran was also declared P.O. Lateron, the parties were referred to mediation, where they settled all theirdisputes amicably.

4.Sh.PuneetKumarGupta,authorizedrepresentativeofrespondent No.2, present in the Court submitted that the disputebetween the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thecompromise, it is agreed that respondent no.2 has received an amountof Rs. 2 Lacs by way of 5 Demand Drafts. It is also agreed that thebalance amount of Rs. 3 Lacs will be paid to respondent no.2 at thetime of recording of statement of the respondent no.2, through Sh.Puneet Kumar Gupta in support of the quashing petition. It is alsoagreed that respondent no.2 has executed an affidavit to be filed insupport of the said quashing proceedings and handed over the same tothe petitioners. It is also agreed that the said petition shall be filed bythe advocates for the petitioners before this Court within four weeksfrom the date of the compromise. It is also agreed that the parties shallappear before this Court when the said petition comes up for hearingto make the requisite statement for quashing of the said proceedings.It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall do all appropriate acts,deeds and things which are required to be done for the quashing of thesaid proceedings. It is further agreed that neither party shall make anyclaim or demand or initiate any proceeding with respect to the disputewhich is the subject matter of the FIR qua the petitioners on anyground whatsoever. It is also agreed that however, in the event of thisCourt not quashing the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question,the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs paid by the petitioners will be refunded bythe respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty toproceed against the petitioners. Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta (AccountManager) of respondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement and of his affidavit dated 03.11.2015 supporting thispetition. As per the affidavit filed by Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta onbehalf of the respondent no.2, it has been stated that all disputes withthe petitioner have been settled and that there exists no objection if theFIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have beenresolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitionersurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be

brought to an end. Statement of Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, AccountManager of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard inwhich he stated that respondent no.2 has entered into compromisewith the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He furtherstated that respondent no.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is

quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex

Court 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 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 the

High 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 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 relationship

or 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.The Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, the authorized representative ofrespondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and hasstated that the matter has been settled out of the free will ofrespondent no.2. As the matter has been settled and compromisedamicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process oflaw if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So,this Court is of the considered opinion that this is fit case to invokethe jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse ofprocess 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 provisionof 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 of

justice. 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 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 in

entering 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 offences under Sections 467/468/471 IPCare non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment inquashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwisesatisfied that the facts 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 the FIR No.665/1998dated11.08.1998,underSections406/420/467/468/471/34IPCregistered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and the proceedingsemanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 02, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE