Delhi High Court - Orders
Anita Sharma & Anr vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 1 August, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 567/2022
ANITA SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Ms.Nazia Parveen,
Mr.Saurabh Sharma and Ms.Raavi
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Laksh Khanna, APP for State with
SI Pramod Kumar, P.S. Anand Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 01.08.2022
1. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.179/2019, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B I.P.C. registered at Police Station: Anand Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Mrs. Manorama Shandilya w/o Dr. Anil Shandilya (since deceased), wherein she alleged that she along with Rekha Sharma were the directors of company 'Jai Mata Di Wooden and Steel Works Pvt. Ltd.' incorporated on 15.09.2006. Both held equal shares of 5000/- each in the company. Later on, Anita Sharma became a shareholder of the company and, thus, three of them became shareholders of company, each holding 5000 shares.
3. She further alleged that she was removed from the directorship of the company and her shareholding was reduced to zero by making forged and fabricated documents by other two directors namely Anita Sharma and Rekha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 1 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 Sharma (present petitioners). No consideration in respect of the alleged transfer of shares was received by her.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the disputed documents allegedly having signatures of Mrs. Manorama Shandilya were forwarded for examination by the complainant at her end and the opinion was obtained.
The complainant/Mrs. Manorama Shandilya expired on 30.04.2021. On 11.03.2022, accused Dr. Anil Shandilya, Advocate (husband of the complainant/Mrs. Manorama Shandilya) joined investigation and informed about the settlement between the parties vide MoU dated 17.01.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has further relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions for quashing of FIR in view of settlement between the parties.
1. Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677;
2. Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2012) 12 SCC 401;
3. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries, (1996) 5 SCC 591;
4. Manoj Sharma v. State & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 1;
5. Gaurav Vij & Ors. v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2409;
6. S N Bansal & Anr. V. NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7348;
7. Abhipra Commodity Consultants v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 2375/2007, Del HC;
8. Punish Jindal v. State & Ors., 2009 (109) DRJ 680;
9. Sanjay Goel and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1651; and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 2 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52
10. Yog Raj Arora v. State & Ors., 2002 (64) DRJ 89.
6. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
In the present case, the chargesheet is yet to be filed and the case is at the initial stages of investigation. Complainant/Mrs. Manorama Shandilya is stated to have been expired on 30.04.2021. The legal heirs of the complainant have been brought on record namely Anil Shandilya/respondent No.2 and Shantanu Shandilya/respondent No.3, who are the husband and son of the complainant. An affidavit of Priya Shandilya, daughter of the deceased/complainant, has also been filed thereby authorising her father Anil Shandilya for settlement/disposal of the cases pending between the complainant and the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the present FIR, a civil case bearing No.513/2021 titled as 'Anil Shandilya vs. Rekha Sharma & Ors.' pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, has been settled and is to be withdrawn after the outcome of the present quashing proceedings.
It is also submitted by parties that another case titled as 'Mr. Shantanu Shandilya vs. M/s. Jai Mata Di Wooden and Steels Works Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.' under Section 241/242 of the Companies Act, pending before NCLT registered as Company Petition No.189/241-242/ND/2021 has also been settled vide order dated 09.02.2022 in terms of MoU dated 17.01.2022.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioners along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that the total consideration amount between the parties for the purpose of settlement is Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Only), out of which an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 3 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 Only) has already been paid on 17.01.2022 before the Civil Court and the remaining amount of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakh Only) is to be paid today, subject to the quashing of the present proceedings .
7. It may be observed that in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677, CBI filed a chargesheet under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 5(2) & 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations in the chargesheet indicated that accused persons conspired with each other in fraudulently diverting the funds of the bank and offences alleging forgery were also included in the chargesheet. The suit between the company and the bank to which the appellant therein was also a party being the former MD, was disposed of on compromise between the parties. Consequent upon the compromise of the suit and concerned terms which read that neither party had any claim against the other, and the parties were withdrawing all allegations, an application for discharge was filed from the criminal complaint in respect of which the chargesheet had been filed by the CBI. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court as well as High Court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was urged that since ingredients of offences committed under Section 468 and 471 as also Section 420 IPC were made out in the chargesheeet, even if the matter was compromised between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be compounded since the offences involved also included non-compoundable offences.
It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that dispute has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. Further, on overall view of the facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the decision in B.S. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 4 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and compromise arrived at between the company and the bank, as also clauses of all the concerned terms filed in the suit, it is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 & 31 are apt to be noticed and may be beneficially reproduced:-
"30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise".
8. Reference may also be placed upon observations made in Para 19 by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 5 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh' in Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 decided on 29.09.2021.
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences „compoundable‟ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
9. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same are to be used to secure the ends of justice and 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.
The question which remains for consideration is whether the criminal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 6 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 proceedings in question may be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the settlement between the parties.
The present proceedings, relate to the transfer of shares in the company which the deceased/complainant was holding and are now stated to have been settled. Since the case is at initial stage of investigation, the corroborative evidence, if any, in respect of the offence under Sections 467/468/471, is yet to come on record.
10. The dispute herein has overtones of a civil dispute with allegedly certain criminal facets which are yet to be investigated. Unfortunately, the complainant herself has expired and the legal heirs (husband and son of the complainant), who happen to be advocates, are not keen on continuing with the present proceedings which have been amicably settled between the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances, it may remain a futile exercise in case the present investigation is permitted to continue in view of settlement between the parties for an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Only). The balance amount of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakh Only) has been paid today in the Court vide Manager's Cheque No.012597 dated 28.07.2022 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of Anil Shandilya.
11. I am of the considered opinion that on an overall view of the facts and circumstances and the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of dispute relating to transfer of shares held by the parties, it is a fit case wherein technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The continuation of the proceedings in view of the settlement between the parties would be nothing but an abuse of process of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 7 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52 Court and an exercise in futility. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Consequently, FIR No.179/2019, under Sections 420/467/467/471/120B I.P.C. registered at Police Station: Anand Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
AUGUST 1, 2022/R Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 567/2022 Page 8 of 8 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:02.08.2022 20:21:52