Delhi High Court
M/S Indiabulls Ventures Ltd & Anr vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 1 March, 2016
Author: P.S.Teji
Bench: P.S.Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1750/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 6296/2015
Date of Decision: March 01st, 2016
M/S INDIABULLS VENTURES LTD & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Ms.Mumtaz
Bhalla & Mr.Aayush Malhotra, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP with Insp.
Afsar Raza, EOW.
Mr.Rishab Raj Jain, Adv. for R-2.
Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Akshay Ringe, Adv. for R-3 with
respondent no.3 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, M/s. Indiabulls Ventures Ltd., formerly known as M/s. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. through its authorized representative Mr. Vikas Sachdeva and M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Services Ltd. formerly known as M/s. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. through its authorized representative Mr. Ashok Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 1 of 11 Sehrawat having their Registered Office at M-62 & 63, 1st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi, 110001 for quashing of FIR No.65/2011 dated 01.04.2011, under Sections 420/471/467/468/120B IPC registered at Police Station E.O.W. and Criminal Complaint i.e. CC No. 46/1 of 2013 under Sections 120B/34 IPC r/w Sections 107/201/409/419/420/467/468/471 IPC on the basis of the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.3, namely, Mr.Chandrashekhar Mishra on 24.04.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.3, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by his counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant/respondent no.3 lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that the complainant got to know that the HDFC Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi have committed forgery, criminal breach of trust and cheating and thereby committed Economic Offences involving more than 5 crore by opening as well as operating a fake account in the name of the complainant. In the first week of Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 2 of 11 September 2009, the complainant came to know that one saving bank account is running in his name and was being operated by some attorney holders. The complainant sent an application demanding the entire documents on 08.09.2009. The complainant found out that from the said account there was a transaction of more than five crores from 02.07.2007 till 22.09.2009.
On 01.04.2011, the FIR in question was registered by the Economic Offences Wing on the basis of a complaint dated 16.11.2009 filed by the respondent no.3/complainant. A criminal Complaint no. 46/1 of 2013 was filed by the respondent no.3 before the Ld. CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. At the time of filing the criminal complaint, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed. Thereafter, the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and the respondent no.2 amicable resolved their differences with the respondent no.3.
4. Respondent No.3 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement, it has been agreed between the parties that with the execution of the instant memorandum of settlement, respondent no.3 has received all his loss amount towards full and final settlement of all Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 3 of 11 the claim(s) of respondent no.3 and/or cost of litigation(s) and/or any other expenses incurred by him in respect of the litigation(s)/dispute(s) between the parties. It is agreed that respondent no.3 acknowledges the receipt of the loss amount as full and final settlement. It is further agreed that respondent no.3 does not wish to pursue the FIR in question and CC No. 46/1 of 2013 pending adjudication in the concerned District Court and/or his complaint(s) filed before various authorities. It is specifically agreed between the parties that respondent no.3 shall take all necessary steps to withdraw/quash the complaint(s) and/or proceedings before any competent Court of law/ Authorities in relation thereto. It is also agreed that respondent no.3 shall have no objection in quashing of the FIR in question and CC No. 46/1 of 2013 titled as Chandra Shekhar Mishra v. HDFC Bank & Ors. and shall fully cooperate with the petitioners and/or their Official(s) or Director(s) and respondent no.2 and/or their Official(s) or Director(s) in quashing of the abovementioned criminal complaint as also the FIR in question. It is also agreed that the parties shall jointly file the quashing petition(s)/and or any other proceedings in this regard before this Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 4 of 11 Court. It is also agreed that petitioner no.2 shall withdraw the arbitration claim pending adjudication before Justice (Retd.) Arvind Sawant. It is also agreed that respondent no.3 shall appear himself or through his constituted attorney before the concerned Courts for giving appropriate statement for withdrawal/quashing of the FIR and/or criminal complaint(s) mentioned above. Respondent No.3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 18.09.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.3 has stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.3 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. He further stated that he 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 Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 5 of 11 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.Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 6 of 11
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 respondent no.3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. 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 Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 7 of 11 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 Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 8 of 11 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 Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 9 of 11 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 467/471/468/107/201/409 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.3, 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 FIR No.65/2011 dated 01.04.2011, under Sections 420/471/467/468/120B IPC registered at Police Station E.O.W. and Criminal Complaint i.e. CC No. 46/1 of 2013 under Sections 120B & 34 IPC r/w Sections 107/201/409/419 Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 10 of 11 /420/467/468/471 IPC and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. Application Crl.M.A. No. 6296/2015 is also disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 01, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 1750/2015 Page 11 of 11