* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.1270/2011
Date of Decision : 06.02.2012
V.N. GUPTA & ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.P. Arora, R-2 in person.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint case No.91/1/02 titled A.P. Arora Vs. V. N. Gupta & Ors Under Section 471 read with section 34 IPC pending in the Court of Shri Deepak Sehrawat, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner nos.1 and the respondent no. 2 entered into a collaboration agreement on 30.10.1992 for developing the plot bearing no. 287, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. In the year 1992-93, the plot was stated to have been developed in Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 1 | 7 terms of the agreement. In the year 1993, the respondent No.2 felt aggrieved on account of certain deficiency on the part of the petitioner No.1, and accordingly, he invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement and filed a suit bearing No.2521/1993. In February, 2002, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint in question under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against V.N.Gupta/petitioner No.1, R.P.Gupta/ petitioner No.2 and S.P.Garg/petitioner No.3 stating that they in furtherance of their common intention, have committed the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy, which is punishable under Section 420 read with section 463/464/468/471/120B IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the pre summoning evidence of the respondent no.2, passed an order on 23.10.2004 summoning the petitioners for an offence under Section 471/34 IPC. In the meantime, in the year 2007, the respondent no.2 filed an execution petition in respect of award in his favour passed on 04.03.1999. On 18.04.2008, the dispute between the parties was settled and the petitioner no.1 and 2 and the respondent no.2 moved a joint application under Order XXI Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 2 | 7 Rule 1 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for disposal of the matter as settled. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 agreed to pay an amount of approximately `20,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2. Accordingly, the execution application bearing no. 172/2008 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. After expiry of more than one and a half years, the respondent no. 2 filed a misconceived execution application no. 149/2009 stating that the settlement which was arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 in the execution petition was not a genuine one, and accordingly, he wanted to pursue his execution application. This application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 13.11.2009 and imposed a cost of `10,000/- on the respondent no.2. The petitioners, on account of such conduct of the respondent no.2, filed a contempt application bearing no.130/2009 as in terms of the compromise, the respondent no.2 was under an obligation to withdraw the complaint initiated by him. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.07.2010, the CCP bearing no. 130/2009, in Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 3 | 7 execution petition bearing no. 132/3007, the Court directed that a joint application shall be filed by the parties for quashing the criminal complaint which was initiated by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners within a period of two weeks. The respondent no.2, while appearing before the Court had agreed to cooperate, but despite the fact that a draft regarding the quashing of the criminal complaint is purported to have been sent by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioners, the former did not come to sign the same with the result that the criminal complaint against the petitioners continue to be pursued by the respondent no. 2.
3. This led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioners, seeking quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings before the learned Trial Court, on the ground that the continuance of this proceeding against them is a gross abuse of processes of law by the respondent no.2. They had filed a joint application that on receipt of the agreed amount, the respondent no. 2 shall withdraw the criminal complaint against the present petitioners. This assurance was primarily given by the Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 4 | 7 respondent no. 2 not only once but also twice in as much as on 23.07.2010 this Court directed the respondent no. 2 to file such a joint application within two weeks which was not done, despite the fact that a copy of the application was purportedly sent to the petitioners by the respondent no.2.
4. I am informed that the petitioners, after the disposal of the execution application bearing EA No.172/2008 on 23.04.2008, the respondent No.2 filed an appeal bearing No.EFA (OS) No.47/2009 and C.M. No.18892/2009 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 10.10.2011, by observing that the plea that there was coercion and loss of mental balance on the part of the respondent No.2 is rather strange on his part as was alleged by him for getting the compromise arrived at between him and the petitioners. On the contrary, the Division Bench observed that the respondent no.2 was trying to shift the blame of the compromise on the senior counsel who was representing him. The Court felt that after having not only pocketed the entire money and signed the compromise application, appeared in the Court and acknowledged the compromise.
Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 5 | 7 The Division Bench had not interfered with the compromise order dated 23.04.2008.
5. The respondent no. 2 cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, in as much as he signed the settlement deed with the petitioners and got the same recorded before the Court and made them to pay a substantial amount of money and yet continued to keep them on limbo. Such a conduct, on the part of the respondent no. 2 is a gross abuse of processes of law which cannot be permitted to be continued as it will only put a premium to dishonest and unscrupulous litigants. I, accordingly, feel that the request of the respondent no. 2, who has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he has filed a special leave petition, is not only unfair but also unprincipled. I find that this is a fit case where the continuance of the complaint and the proceedings under Section 471 read with section 34 IPC against the present petitioners at the instance of the respondent no.2, by way of a complaint in case titled A.P. Arora Vs. V. N. Gupta & Ors is a gross abuse of process of law, accordingly, the Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 6 | 7 complaint and consequent proceedings are quashed. The present petition is allowed.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for the purpose of information.
V.K. SHALI,J
FEBRUARY 06, 2012
KP
Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2011 Page 7 | 7