Pil Mumbai Pvt Ltd & Ors vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3931 Del

$~
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         CRL.M.C. 3848/2014
          PIL MUMBAI PVT LTD & ORS                                ..... Petitioner
                            Through       Mr. Manoj Khanna and Mr. Abhimanyu,
                                          Advocates.

                                 versus

          STATE & ORS                                             ..... Respondents
                   Through                Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public
                                          Prosecutor .
                                          SI Bhoopender Kumar, EOW/ Crime
                                          Branch.
                                          Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate with
                                          respondent No.2.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.13185/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.C. No.3848/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.13184/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of supplementary charge sheet dated 26.04.2010 filed in FIR No.640/2005 dated 16.07.2005 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC; as well as the summoning order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the A.C.M.M. passed in that FIR; qua the petitioners, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners, who are arrayed as the accused; and the complainant / respondent No.2 herein.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Duggal, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, accept notice.

4. The aforesaid FIR No.640/2005, that was registered at the instance of the second respondent, has also been the subject matter of two previous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which were moved by different accused persons at different points of time, after having entered into similar settlement with the complainant. Of these, Crl. M No.196/2008 is stated to have been moved by Sh. Manish Gupta, Mr. Ashish Gupta and Mr. Satish Kumar; whilst Crl.M.C. No.1393/2011 was moved by Dhruvender Prakash Goel and Ashish Dhruvender Goel. Crl. M. No.196/2008 came to be allowed on 21.01.2008 by this Court on the basis of a Compromise Deed dated 20.03.2007 while concluding that since the complainant / respondent No.2 has been compensated for all the losses occasioned to him, and does not want to proceed with the complaint; therefore, there is hardly any possibility of conviction in a matter where the complainant is not supporting the prosecution; consequently, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these criminal proceedings. It was in those circumstances that this Court gave the following order;

"In view of the aforesaid, FIR No.640/2005 under Sections 406/420/471/120B IPC and all the proceedings in pursuance thereto are quashed and the petition is allowed."

Thereafter, the second petition, being Crl. M. No.1393/2011, was taken up by this Court on 19.03.2014, where also, the matter was once again examined qua the settlement arrived at with the second set of petitioners mentioned above; and the court was satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings qua them also, since the

complainant had settled with them and was no longer interested in supporting the prosecution in that regard; consequently, the supplementary charge sheet dated 26.04.2014, that has been filed against the second set of petitioners, namely, Dhruvender Prakash Goel and Mr. Ashish Dhruvender Goel, also came to be quashed.

5. Now, the current petition has been moved by (i)PIL Mumbai Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) Sh. Farokh Homi Commissariat and (iii) Sh. Swarup Sathischandra Bangara praying that the aforesaid supplementary charge sheet dated 26.04.2010, in so far as it pertains to the present petitioners, be also quashed on the same grounds.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.08.2014 has been executed between the petitioners in this matter and the complainant / respondent No.2 herein setting down all the terms and conditions, upon which, all claims of the complainant have been settled. In full satisfaction of all his claims, a Banker's Cheque bearing No.254864, for a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs, dated 11.07.2014, drawn on Bank of Baroda, has also been handed over to the second respondent / complainant, who is present in person in Court today.

7. Counsel for the petitioner further states, on instructions, that his clients are also willing to pay any compensation towards costs keeping in view the extensive State machinery engaged in the investigation and prosecution.

8. Counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, states that even as regards the remaining three accused persons, namely, Rajiv Aggarwal, Goverdhan Das and Sanjeev Aggarwal, who are also named in the supplementary charge sheet dated 26.04.2014, the complainant has arrived at a settlement and is no longer interested in pursuing the matter, and

therefore, the matter be now closed altogether.

9. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances, and in view of the fact that the matter has been settled, although at different points of time, with all the accused persons; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, the chance of any success of the prosecution are greatly diminished, and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings. He further clarifies that although the operative portion of the order passed by this Court on 21.01.2008 in Crl.M. No.196/2008, which has been reproduced above, would seem to indicate that the FIR No.640/2005, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, have already been quashed on that date; the fact of the matter is that the orders passed on 21.01.2008 and 19.03.2014 in Crl.M. No.196/2008 and Crl.M.C. No.1393/20011, respectively, have been construed and interpreted by the State as well as the trial court as quashing proceedings under the said FIR only qua the petitioners in those respective petitions. He further submits that now, looking to the fact that the matters have been settled qua all the accused, the said FIR, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, can be properly quashed.

10. Looking to the circumstances, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like

transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

To my mind, looking to the overall circumstances, and the previous orders passed by this Court whilst examining similar petitions for quashing qua other co-accused; I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus, specially since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution thereby greatly reducing the chances of success.

11. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and FIR No.640/2005 dated 16.07.2005, and all proceedings emanating therefrom; as well as the summoning order dated 12.07.2010 by the A.C.M.M. under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471, 120B IPC qua the petitioners and all the remaining accused stand quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.35,000/- as costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers' Social Security and Welfare Fund within two weeks from today. Proof of payment of costs to be filed in the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

12. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.13184/2014, is disposed off.

13. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge AUGUST 27, 2014 dr