Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Agarwal & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 20 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1366/2024
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta and Mr. Mehul
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP with Inspector
Lalit Kumar, PS: Model Town and SI
Shivendra Singh, PS: Subhash Place.
Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate with
Respondent No. 2 through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No. 403/2012, under Sections 420 IPC, registered at P.S.: Subhash
Place, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 along with respondent No. 2 through VC appear on
advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, BTM Exports Limited
respondent No. 2 through its Director entered into a transaction with
petitioner No. 5 through its Directors (petitioner Nos. 1 to 3) and petitioner
No. 4 for transportation of iron ore fines from Deojhar Railway Siding to
Vizag Port in Railway rakes. A sum of Rs. 1.40 crore was paid by
respondent No. 2 in bank account of petitioner No. 5. However, due to issue
with reference to documents of lading, the iron ore fines could not be
transported. A civil suit CS(OS) 2940/2011 for recovery of Rs. 1.40 crore
was preferred by respondent No. 2 against petitioner No. 5, which has been
settled in terms of order dated 25.01.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present FIR was
registered on complaint of respondent No. 2, wherein, the petitioners have
been granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of 50% of the claim amount.
It is urged that civil proceedings have been given a criminal shade, which
have been settled in CS (OS) 2920/2011 as referred to above.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Respondent No. 2 appears though VC and submits that matter has
been settled in terms of order dated 25.01.2024 passed in CS(OS) 2940/2011.
7. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which
cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR
may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no
generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is
required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and
consider the impact on the society.
8. The dispute between parites mainly relates to commercial civil
dispute. In view of settlement between the parties, no purpose shall be served
by keeping the proceedings pending. Keeping in view the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the continuity
of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. Consequently, FIR
No. 403/2012, under Sections 420 IPC, registered at P.S.: Subhash Place,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed. Personal
Bond / Surety Bond funished on behalf of the petitioners stand discharged.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2024/R
