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
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.
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.