Delhi High Court
Vishal Swara & Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 18 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1555/2021, CRL.M.A. Nos.10869/2021, 26730/2022 &
8584/2024
VISHAL SWARA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sandeep Phogat and Mr.Ravi,
Advocates alongwith petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
with Insp. Ravinder, PS EOW.
Mr.Anupam Kishore Sinha,
Mr.Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,
Mr.Sahitya Srivastava and Mr.Apoorv
Jha, Advocates with Sh.Sanjay
Pandey, Managing Director, M/s SIS
Ltd. in person (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
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. 62/2021, under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at P.S.: EOW
and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The disputes between the parties have primarily arisen out of Share
Purchase Agreement and has civil connotation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as observed in order
dated 13.03.2024, the disputes between the parties have been settled between
the parties in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 15.11.2022 except for
non-payment of Rs.24,01,313/- received by the company from RSLDC
which has arisen after execution of the Settlement Agreement. He further
submits that FIR be quashed subject to prayers made in CRL.M.A.
No.8584/2024 for reference of dispute regarding sum of Rs.24,01,313/- to
arbitration.
4. Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Managing Director, M/s SIS Ltd., for respondent
No.2 submits that he has no objection for quashing of the present FIR subject
to reference of the dispute for arbitration regarding amount of
Rs.24,01,313/-, as prayed on behalf of the petitioners and without prejudice
to the stand of respondent No.2 that the aforesaid amount is not payable to
the petitioners as per Settlement Agreement.
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. Petitioners in the present case seek 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.
7. The disputes between parties mainly relate 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. 62/2021, under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at P.S.: EOW and
the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
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.
MARCH 18, 2024/v
