CRL.M.C./997/2014 of RISHI NARULA Vs STATE & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 997/2014

Date of Decision : February 05[th], 2016

RISHI NARULA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Yogesh Swaroop and Ms. AshaGarg, Advs.

versus

STATE( NCT OF DELHI ) & ORS..... RespondentThroughMr. Arun Kr. Sharma APP.Mr. Abhijit Puri, Adv. for R-2.

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, Mr. Rishi Narula for quashing of FIRNo.41/2014 dated 25.01.2014, under Sections 420/419 IPC &Sections 66/66C/66D Information Technology Act registered atPolice Station Kirti Nagar on the basis of the compromise deedexecuted between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, namely,SBI Cards Payment and Service Pvt. Ltd., Delhi through itsauthorized signatory-Mr. Mukesh Giri on 22.02.2014.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that Mr. J.P.Sundriyal, present in the Court has beenidentified to be the authorized representative of complainant/firstinformant-respondent no.2 in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3.The factual matrix of this present case is that the FIR inquestion was lodged by the complainant on the allegation of misusingthe credit cards facility of SBI Cards for unlawful gains by makingunsolicited calls to SBI credit cardholders. The complainant is aregistered Company. The Company checked the alleged card accountsand found that mobile number and email id was changed and newones were updated. Later on, on enquiry it was found that thecustomers never requested the Company to change their mobilenumber and email. They also informed that they received some phonecalls on behalf of SBI card agents asking for card details. TheCompany is alleged to have never shared customer details to any thirdparty and never instructed any third party to make such calls. Onenquiry, merchant Snapdeal informed them that product of Sonywas booked in the name of Mr. Harjit Singh and two other productsare yet to be delivered. It was discovered that the said person hascaused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 1,62,964/- to the said

cardholders. Thereafter the FIR in question was lodged against thepetitioner.

The petitioner was in judicial custody since 25.01.2014 andwas granted bail thereafter. Later on, the matter was compromisedbetween the parties.

4.Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thecontents of the Compromise Deed, both the parties have settled thedispute and have agreed that the petitioner shall, prior to the filing ofthe petition for quashing the FIR in question, make payment of Rs36,951/- to respondent no.2 towards the loss suffered by thecompany/its customers due to the act committed by the petitioner. It isagreed that thereafter the said amount of Rs 36,951/- was paid by theuncle of the petitioner vide receipt no. 17489301 of sum ofRs.29,820/- and receipt no. 1749302 of sum of Rs. 5,897/- on31.01.2014.It is further agreed that as per the instructions ofrespondent no.2 that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,231 has beendeposited by the petitioner and duly received and acknowledged byrespondent no.2 vide receipt no. 17489303 on 11.02.2014. It has alsobeen agreed that respondent no.2 has received direct credit back fromthe merchants (Snapdeal/Mega deals) for an amount of Rs. 1,12,910/-.Therefore it is finally agreed between the parties that the respondentno.2 shall not object if the petitioner were to file quashing petition.The affidavit dated 24.02.2014 of Sh. Mukesh Giri, authorizedsignatory/authorized representative of respondent no. 2 has beenplaced on record. Mr. J.P.Sundriyal affirmed the contents of theaforesaid compromise deed and of the said affidavit. In the affidavit,it is stated that respondent no.2 has no objection if the FIR in questionis quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolvedthrough mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives andso, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to anend. Statement of Sh. J.P. Sundriyal, authorized signatory/authorizedrepresentative of respondent No.2, has been recorded in this regard inwhich it is stated that the respondent no.2 has entered into acompromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes withhim. It is further stated that respondent no.2 shall have no objection ifthe 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 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 the

matter 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 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.

The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question andhas, vide its authorized representative/ authorized signatory, statedthat the matter has been settled out of its own free will. As the matterhas been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an

extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedingsbetween the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the consideredopinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure theends 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 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/0808/2009

has 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 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 present case, the offence under Section 420 IPC is anoffence compoundable with the permission of this Court as perSection 320 (2) Cr.P.C. Keeping in view, the above mentioned factsand circumstances, the offence under the said section is compounded.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.41/2014 dated25.01.2014, under Sections 420/419 IPC & Sections 66/66C/66DInformation Technology Act registered at Police Station Kirti Nagarand the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the

petitioner.

13.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

FEBRUARY 05, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE