1. Fraudulent issuance of insurance policies involving forged signatures and misappropriation of funds — Complaint under Sections 406, 468, and 120-B IPC. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M. R SHAH, JJ.
SRINIVASAN IYENGER AND ANOTHER - APPELLANTS
Vs.
BIMLA DEVI AGARWAL AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2019 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 2986 OF 2015] (WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 2990 OF 2015)
Decided On : 15-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Civil cases having criminal outfit can be compounded.
Civil cases having criminal outfit can be compounded.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482—Compounding of offence – Insurance policies – It has been revealed that accused persons in conspiracy with each other forged signatures of complainant, her husband and her son with intention to deceive them for wrongful gain – It is alleged that at very inception of conversation with complainant through her husband, accused persons have been in conspiracy with each other and induced complainant to deliver cheques with an intention to deceive complainant for wrongful gain – Now parties have settled dispute amicably and that dispute between parties seems to be having predominant element of a civil dispute and origin is predominantly or overwhelming a civil dispute, this is a fit case to exercise power under Article 142 of Constitution of India to meet ends of justice – On payment of total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by Appellants to original Complainant, as agreed between parties, criminal proceedings be quashed. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of Case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Petition by which High Court has rejected said application preferred by Appellants herein to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them by Respondent No. 1 herein - original Complainant, original Accused - original Applicants have preferred present appeals. Common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals
Findings of Court:
We allow parties to compound offences, even though offences alleged are non-compoundable, as dispute between parties predominantly or overwhelming seems to be of a civil nature and that dispute is a private one and between two private parties. On payment of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by Appellants to original Complainant to be deposited in bank account of original Complainant within a period of two weeks, criminal proceedings stand quashed.
Result : Appeals disposed of in terms.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Mr. E.R. Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Kshatrshal Raj, Advocate, Ms. Sumedha Sindhu, Advocate, Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Advocate, M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sunil Murarka, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate, Ms. Mairayee Banerjee, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Mr. E.R. Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Kshatrshal Raj, Advocate, Ms. Sumedha Sindhu, Advocate, Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Advocate, M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sunil Murarka, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate, Ms. Mairayee Banerjee, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; Respondent opposed the quashing. (Para 2 , 5 )
3. The dispute between the private parties is predominantly civil in nature, making it a fit case for exercising extraordinary powers to meet the ends of justice. (Para 11 , 13 )
4. Non-compoundable offences may be compounded and proceedings quashed if the dispute is predominantly civil and settled between private parties. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Criminal proceedings quashed upon payment of settlement amount to the complainant. (Para 13 )
6. Can non-compoundable offences be compounded by the court?
Yes, the court may allow the compounding of non-compoundable offences if the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and is a private dispute between two parties. (Para 13 )
7. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement?
The court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash proceedings to meet the ends of justice when the dispute is predominantly civil and settled amicably. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. What is the significance of the nature of the dispute in quashing criminal proceedings?
If the origin of the dispute is predominantly or overwhelmingly civil, the court is more likely to permit compounding and quash the criminal proceedings to ensure justice. (Para 11 , 13 )
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted in both the appeals.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and, as such, these appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Petition No. 634 of 2014, by which the High Court has rejected the said application preferred by the Appellants herein to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by Respondent No. 1 herein - the original Complainant, the original Accused - original Applicants have preferred the present appeals.
3. That a private complaint came to be filed by the original Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) through her husband (Respondent No. 2 herein and power of attorney holder of Respondent No. 1) before the Court of learned CJM at Tinsukia, Assam against the Appellants herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 120-B IPC. At this stage, it is required to be noted that Respondent No. 4 - company can be said to be a broker agent of the Reliance Life Insurance Company and the relationship between them is governed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2002. That the original Complainant filed a complaint against in all 12 persons. That the said complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 42C of 2014.
4. It was the case of the original Complainant that she was the holder of an insurance policy issued by the ICICI Life Prudential in the month of August, 2013.
4.1 It was alleged that the complainant received a call from one Sri Navin Mittal, who identified himself as an Executive Officer of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.
4.2 It was further alleged that the said caller informed the complainant over phone that as per the instruction of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short "IRDA"), "the fund related to Life Insurance Policy of the complainant with the ICICI Life Prudential has been released through the Reliance Life Insurance and also informed that bonus amount of Rs. 19,245/, Rs. 1,94,730/- and Rs. 96,500/- against the said life insurance policy is ready to be disbursed in favour of the complainant by the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Accused no. 1 in C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014)
4.3 It was further alleged that the said caller had further requested the complainant to send a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- drawn in favour of the Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Pan Card and identity cards of the family members of complainant for verification. The caller also informed the complainant that after necessary verification, the amount in the said cheque together with bonus amount would be released in favour of the complainant.
4.4 It was further alleged that believing such statements to be true, the complainant sent a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to Accused no. 1 along with copies of other documents, sought for. The said cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was received by Accused No. 1 in due course. Thereafter, in the month of November 2013, the complainant received another call from phone No. 09210657675. This time, the callers were Smt. Meenakshi Rawat and Sri Deepak Kapoor.
4.5 It was further alleged that these callers introduced themselves to be the Executive Officers of Accused no. 1. The second caller also narrated the facts which were already narrated to the complainant by the first caller. The second caller also requested the complainant to send one more cheque of Rs. 42,000/- drawn in favour of Accused no. 1.
4.6 It was further alleged that they also informed the complainant that if the said cheque for Rs. 42,000/- was not sent by the complainant, the bonus amount could not be released. They, however, assured the complainant that the amounts so paid through cheque in favour of Accused No. 1 would be refund
