Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Amit Katyal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 February, 2021

Author: Subramonium Prasad

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C.381/2021 & CRL.M.A. 2008/2021
       AMIT KATYAL                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate

                          versus
       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                          Through       Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
                                        State/respondent No.1.
                                        Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the
                                        complainant.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
               ORDER

% 11.02.2021 CRL.M.A. 2009/2021 (Exemption) CRL.M.A. 2010/2021 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing FIR No. 41/2017 dated 03.03.2017, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, Delhi, for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the ground of compromise having been arrived at between the parties.

2. The petitioner is a Director in three companies namely Iceberg Trading Pvt. Ltd., Venta Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Krrish Realty Nirman Pvt. Ltd.) & Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (all of which are group companies). The petitioner engaged respondent No.2 company for CRL.M.C.381/2021 Page 1 of 7 carrying out the interior & exterior works of his residential house bearing No. B-9, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048. Venta Realtech & Angle Infrastructure have also engaged the complainant to carry out certain civil works in their project sites as per work orders. The dispute pertains to few cheques worth of Rs. 58 lakhs which were given for part payment for discharging the liability of Rs.187 lakhs in respect of interior and exterior works of B-9, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi. The said cheques were returned unpaid/dishonoured. Since money was not paid the aforesaid FIR was filed. Respondent Nos. 3-5 are the Directors of M/s Krrish Reality Nirman Pvt. Ltd.(now Venta Realtech Pvt. Ltd.) and respondent No.6 is the authorized person of M/s Krrish Reality Nirman Pvt. Ltd.(now Venta Realtech Pvt. Ltd.).

3. The principal ground on which the petition is filed is that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have settled the matter by entering into a settlement, dated 30.01.2019, which was arrived at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Copy of the same are annexed with the present petition as Annexure- G (page No.61 of the paperbook).

4. The terms of the settlement agreement have been reduced in writing. In terms of the said settlement:-

i. the complainant (M/s Anumaya Interiors Pvt. Ltd.) shall carry out the interior and exterior works of B-9, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi for a fixed sum of Rs. 5,75,00,0001- (Rupees Five Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only) plus applicable statutory taxes;

ii. the complainant shall commence work at site within a period of 4 (four) months from 28.01.2019 or such other date as notified by the petitioner but not later than 8 (eight) months from this date hereof.

iii. That the complainant shall submit its bills to the petitioner on a monthly basis with respect to works done on site. The respondent through its project management team (PMC)/ engineer shall duly certify the said bills promptly The Parties understand and agree that the payment of the next monthly advance to the complainant is dependent on the previous bill being certified by the PMC to a minimum of 75% (seventy five percent) of the submitted bill. The applicable taxes of the previous bill shall also be paid by the respondent along with the next month's money advance. For the avoidance of doubt, it is abundantly clarified that under no circumstances the payment to the complainant shall exceed Rs. 5,75,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only) for the works carried out.

iv. That the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 36,95,0001- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) plus applicable taxes thereon to the complainant on account of certain consultancy services availed in the recent past. Out of which petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh only) through Pay order No. 511179 dated 25.01.2019 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. The balance amount of Rs. 27,95,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Only) shall be paid by the respondent in the following manner:-

(a) Rs.12 lakhs through cheque/draft/RTGS on or before 28.02.2019;

(b) Rs.12 lakhs through cheque/draft/RTGS on or before 30.04.2019;

(c) Rs.3,95,000/- along with applicable taxes through cheque/draft/RTGS on or before 31.05.2019.

In respect of the the aforesaid commitment, the petitioner has delivered three post dated cheques, cheque No. 000989, 000990 of Rs. 12 lakh each & cheque No. 000991 of Rs. 10,60,000/- (including applicable taxes) all three drawn on HDFC Bank, Jasola Branch, New Delhi.

v. The petitioner shall further pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) on or before 30.06.2019, to the complainant through cheque/draft/RTGS, towards settlement of all the cases. The petitioner has delivered a post dated cheque No. 000992, drawn on HDFC Bank, Jasola Branch, New Delhi.

5. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 company states that the company has entered into the settlement with the petitioner without any undue force pressure or coercion. He further states that the company has no objection in case the present FIR and the consequent proceedings are quashed. The parties shall remain bound by their statements made in Court today.

6. The Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in non-compoundable cases. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a CRL.M.C.381/2021 Page 4 of 7 criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the CRL.M.C.381/2021 Page 5 of 7 accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding." (emphasis supplied)

7. The present case is pre-dominantly civil in nature. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties the possibility of conviction is remote. In view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, this court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the present criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the FIR No. 41/2017 dated 03.03.2017, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, Delhi, for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

8. Since the Police had to spend valuable time in investigating the offence and considerable time has been spent by the court in the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to impose cost on the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund. Details of the Account are as under:

            Account Name:        DHCBA Lawyers Social Security
                                and Welfare Fund
           Account Number:      15530100009730
           Bank Name:           UCO Bank
           Branch:              Sher Shah Road, New Delhi
           IFSC Code:           UCBA0001553

Copy of the receipts may be given to the concerned Investigating Officer and the same be also filed with the Registry to show compliance of the order.

9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

FEBRUARY 11, 2021 Rahul CRL.M.C.381/2021 Page 7 of 7