Delhi High Court - Orders
Sudershan Suri & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 October, 2020
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1173/2020 & CRL.M.A. 10305/2020 (stay),
CRL.M.A. 12170/2020
SUDERSHAN SURI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms Rebecca John, Senior Advocate
Mr B. Badinath, Satinder Kapur, Mr Prithvi
Kapur, Mr Shobit Nanda, Ms Megha Bahl,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr Karanjeet
Singh Sharma, Advocate for State.
Mr Gautam Khazanchi, Advocate with
Mr Pradyuman Kaistha, Advocate for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 20.10.2020 [Hearing held through videoconferencing]
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the FIR No. 73/2020 under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered with PS EOW, New Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.
2. It is the petitioners' case that no offence under the aforesaid sections has been made out and thus FIR in question is liable to be quashed. The said FIR was registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned CMM on an Signature Not Verified Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Location: Signing Date:21.10.2020 23:52:46 application filed by respondent no.2 (Mr Vijay Kumar Suri) under section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The complainant had alleged that the accused (petitioners herein) had misappropriated large sums of money from the bank account of Ms Suri Sons - a firm in which the complainant and his brother claim to be partners.
3. The petitioners had executed a partnership deed dated 07.01.2019 showing the said firm to be reconstituted by excluding the complainant and his mother. The complainant alleged that the said deed was forged and reconstitution of the firm as such had caused huge loss to the complainant and his mother and an unlawful gains to the accused.
4. It is seen that the allegation of forgery offence under Section 471/468 of the IPC is premised on the a partnership deed dated 07.01.2019 executed by the petitioners. Clearly, the same cannot be stated to be forged as the petitioners have signed the same in their individual capacity and admit their signatures on the same. The complainant may be aggrieved by their act of reconstitution of the firm but the deed is not a forgery.
5. During the course of the proceedings it became evident that the disputes between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 (complainant herein) and his family group relate to settlement executed on 04.01.2019 whereby different family groups had, inter alia, agreed to separate their interests in firms jointly operated by them.
6. The concerned parties (the petitioners and respondent no.2 and his group) have since entered into an agreement whereby they have decided to refer all the disputes relating to the firms (including M/s Suri Sons) to arbitration. A copy of the arbitration agreement and the agreed terms of reference - "Terms of reference to Arbitration for enforcement of Family Signature Not Verified Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Location: Signing Date:21.10.2020 23:52:46 Settlement Qua the Partnership Firms" dated 19.10.2020 - has also been forwarded to this Court. The same is taken on record.
7. In view of the above, respondent no.2 joins the petitioners in praying that the FIR in question be quashed.
8. As is noticed above, that the allegation of commission of offence under Section 468/471 of the IPC is not made out. It is also seen that the complaint was filed, essentially, in respect of a grievance that the obligations in terms of the family settlement dated 04.01.2019 were not being performed. It is well settled that family settlements are binding and the courts insofar as possible must ensure that the same are given effect to. [See: KK Modi v KN Modi: (1988) 3 SCC 573]
9. Considering the nature of disputes and the agreement between the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration, this Court considers it apposite to quash the FIR in question.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that in terms of their settlement as recorded in the "Terms of reference to Arbitration for enforcement of Family Settlement Qua the Partnership Firms" dated 19.10.2020, the parties have agreed not to alienate immovable property belonging to Suri Sons situated at Dev Nagar and immovable property of Hansa International at D-34 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, pending the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. The parties are bound down to the "Terms of reference to Arbitration for enforcement of Family Settlement Qua the Partnership Firms" dated 19.10.2020.
11. Ms John, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners undertakes on their behalf that shall not alienate the said properties (immovable property belonging to Suri Sons situated at Dev Nagar and Signature Not Verified Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Location: Signing Date:21.10.2020 23:52:46 property of Hansa International at D-34 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I).
12. In view of the above the FIR in question (FIR No. 73/2020 under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC registered with PS EOW, New Delhi) and all proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.
13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 20, 2020 pkv Signature Not Verified Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Location: Signing Date:21.10.2020 23:52:46