V.N. Gupta & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 782 Del

*               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