CRL.M.C./113/2018 of ANGEL BROKING PVT LTD & ORS Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 113/2018 & Crl. M.A. No. 488/2018 (stay)

ANGEL BROKING PVT LTD & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Jagriti Ahujaand Ms. Aditya Bakshi, Advs.ThroughMr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Jagriti Ahujaand Ms. Aditya Bakshi, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP with SIKamlesh Kumar, P.S. Rajinder Nagarfor respondent no. 1Respondent no. 2 in personThroughMs. Manjeet Arya, APP with SIKamlesh Kumar, P.S. Rajinder Nagarfor respondent no. 1Respondent no. 2 in person

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%28.02.2018

Petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are Managing Director/Director/employees ofpetitioner no. 1 which is share broking company.Respondent no. 2lodged FIR No. 433/2015 under Sections 420/34 IPC at Police StationRajinder Nagar, alleging therein that he had been selling and purchasingshares through petitioner no. 1. He had deposited shares worth `40,00,000/-towards security deposit.Petitioners did share trading in account ofcomplainant without his instructions thereby resulting huge losses.He wasnot informed about said transactions. Shares given by him towards securitywere adjusted towards the alleged loss.

It is submitted that respondent no. 2 has settled the matter with thepetitioner no. 1, during the arbitration proceedings before the ArbitralTribunal appointed under the rules and regulations of National StockExchange of India Limited, on the terms and conditions as stipulated in thedocument titled “Consent Terms” dated 27[th]April, 2015 executed before theArbitrators in Arbitration Matter No. F&O/D-0006/2015 titled Mr. JagdishBandhu Gandhi vs. Angel Broking Private Limited. It is, thus, prayed thataforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom may bequashed.

Respondent no. 2 is present in Court and has been identified by SIKamlesh Kumar of police station Rajinder Nagar. Respondent no. 2 admitshaving settled the matter with the petitioner no. 1 before the learnedArbitrator.He also admits having received the entire settled amount of`15,99,000/-. Respondent no. 2 says that he has no objection in case FIR isquashed against the petitioner no. 1 and its employees, that is, petitioner nos.2 to 7 and Mr. Anil Himani, Branch Manager, Mr. Gaurav Raghav, SecurityAdvisor and Mr. Himanshu Khandelwal, Security Advisor.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as detailed above, I amof the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal

proceedings alive in view of the settlement arrived at between the partiesbefore the learned Arbitrator.Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIRNo. 433/2015 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police StationRajinder Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applicationis disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.

FEBRUARY 28, 2018r.bararia

A.K. PATHAK, J.