Sanjit Shastri & Ors vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1693 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4667/2015
                                   Date of Decision: March 02nd, 2016
    SANJIT SHASTRI & ORS                             ..... Petitioners
                  Through          Mr.Satish Tamta, Adv.

                         versus

    THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR            ..... Respondents
                  Through   Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
                            SI Vijay, PS Lajpat Nagar.
                            Mr.Puneet Kumar Gupta, Authorised
                            Representative of Respondent No.2 in
                            person.

           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sanjit Shastri, Sh. Vijay Gupta, Sh.

Himanshu Thakkar and Sh. Ravinder Deshmukh for quashing the FIR

No.665/1998 dated 11.08.1998, under Sections 406/420/467/468/

471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar on the basis of

the compromise arrived at in the Delhi High Court Mediation &

Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi between the

petitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, M/s. FS Advertising

Ltd., having its registered office at 14, Community Centre, East of

Kailash, New Delhi-110065 through its authorized representative Sh.

Puneet Kumar Gupta on 12.10.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, present in the Court has

been identified to be the authorized representative of respondent no.2

in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant

lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that the petitioners were

serving as Senior Vice President (Projects and New Media),

Executive Vice President and General Manager (Advertising Sales)

with M/s Time and Space Media Entertainment Promotion Ltd. T&S

had regular business dealings with M/s F.S. Advertising. FSA

appointed T&S as "Agency on record" for its various clients. On

30.04.1998, FSA filed a complaint before the Court of MM, New

Delhi making allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery

etc. against the petitioners.

On the said complaint, an investigation was directed under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the ld. MM and accordingly FIR in

question was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the

charge sheet was filed by the IO on 09.03.1999. Before filing the

charge sheet, the accused Abbi Karun was declared a P.O. and during

trail the main accused Manu S Kamaran was also declared P.O. Later

on, the parties were referred to mediation, where they settled all their

disputes amicably.

4. Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of

respondent No.2, present in the Court submitted that the dispute

between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

compromise, it is agreed that respondent no.2 has received an amount

of Rs. 2 Lacs by way of 5 Demand Drafts. It is also agreed that the

balance amount of Rs. 3 Lacs will be paid to respondent no.2 at the

time of recording of statement of the respondent no.2, through Sh.

Puneet Kumar Gupta in support of the quashing petition. It is also

agreed that respondent no.2 has executed an affidavit to be filed in

support of the said quashing proceedings and handed over the same to

the petitioners. It is also agreed that the said petition shall be filed by

the advocates for the petitioners before this Court within four weeks

from the date of the compromise. It is also agreed that the parties shall

appear before this Court when the said petition comes up for hearing

to make the requisite statement for quashing of the said proceedings.

It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall do all appropriate acts,

deeds and things which are required to be done for the quashing of the

said proceedings. It is further agreed that neither party shall make any

claim or demand or initiate any proceeding with respect to the dispute

which is the subject matter of the FIR qua the petitioners on any

ground whatsoever. It is also agreed that however, in the event of this

Court not quashing the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question,

the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs paid by the petitioners will be refunded by

the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to

proceed against the petitioners. Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta (Account

Manager) of respondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid

settlement and of his affidavit dated 03.11.2015 supporting this

petition. As per the affidavit filed by Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta on

behalf of the respondent no.2, it has been stated that all disputes with

the petitioner have been settled and that there exists no objection if the

FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been

resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner

survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be

brought to an end. Statement of Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, Account

Manager of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in

which he stated that respondent no.2 has entered into a compromise

with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. He further

stated that respondent no.2 has no objection if the 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 consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a

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 up and lay down the following principles by which the

High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would 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 form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship

or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have 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 Sh. Puneet Kumar Gupta, the authorized representative of

respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has

stated that the matter has been settled out of the free will of

respondent no.2. As the matter has been settled and compromised

amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of

law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So,

this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke

the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of

process of law and to secure the ends 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 provision

of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is

abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;

where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to

avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision

of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of

justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to

circumvent the express provisions of law.

9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram

Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of

Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009

has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the

Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice

or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is

not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced

that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not

affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of

such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace

and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.

In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and

energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in

entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is

compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.

Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of

Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not

compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of

securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,

section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of

quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts

and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-

compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that

notwithstanding the fact the offences under Sections 467/468/471 IPC

are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in

quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise

satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of

statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants

to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be

quashed.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the FIR No.665/1998

dated 11.08.1998, under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and the proceedings

emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 02, 2016 dd