Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 472
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J
Abhipra Commodity Consutltants P. Ltd. & Others
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another
CRL.M.C. No. 2375 of 2007
Decided On: 17-02-2012
For the Petitioners:Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. with Rahul Gupta, S. Tabrez & Shekhar Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State with SI. S. K. Jha in person.
For the Respondent 2:Ms. Mugdha Pandey, Brajesh, K Srivastava, & Dinesh Kumar, Advocates.
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations are of a civil nature and the continuance of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Companies Act - 1956 - 420/409/467/468/471/477A/120B - The court quashed FIR no. 155/2007 registered at PS-Lahori Gate with emanating proceedings thereto. The disputes between the petitioners and respondents are of civil nature.
Fact of the Case:
Differences arose between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 in 2006 regarding transactions at exchanges. Respondent no. 1 preferred a claim before Arbitration Department of the National Commodity and Derivates Exchange Ltd. Ld. Sole Arbitrator passed an Arbitration Award in favor of respondent no. 2. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed a complaint to the Police, resulting in FIR no. 155/2007. The petitioners settled all claims with respondent no. 2 and paid a sum of Rs.7 Lac towards full and final settlement of all claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed FIR no. 155/2007 registered at PS-Lahori Gate with emanating proceedings thereto. The disputes between the petitioners and respondents are of civil nature.
Issues: Dispute resolution through arbitration, settlement of claims, abuse of judicial process, quashing of FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the disputes between the parties, the settlement of claims, and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana. It concluded that the disputes were of a civil nature and quashed the FIR.
Final Decision: The court quashed FIR no. 155/2007 registered at PS-Lahori Gate with emanating proceedings thereto. The disputes between the petitioners and respondents are of civil nature.
SURESH KAIT, J
1. Vide order dated 03.11.2011, this court has passed the following order:-
1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director of the petitioner No.1 respectively. Since the year 2006, respondent no.2 had been doing transactions through the petitioner No.1 at the registered office at GF-1, Abhipra Complex, Dilkhush Commercial Complex, A-387, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi and also a member of NCDEX, NMCE and MCX.
2. In the year 2006, some differences arose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in relation to some transactions carried at the aforesaid Exchanges. Consequently, in 2006 respondent No.1 preferred a claim before Arbitration Department of the National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. Thereafter, as per its bye-laws and regulations, NCDEX appointed Shri Ajant Kumar as Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that on 3.10.2006, the learned Sole Arbitrator commenced the arbitration proceedings in arbitration case No.NCDEX/29/2006 and on 22.1.2007 passed an arbitration award of Rs.10,39,380.56p in favour of respondent No.2.
4. On 16.4.2007 respondent No.2 made a written complaint to the police against the petitioners requesting therein to register a case for forgery, cheating and criminal breach of trust. On the same day, the police registered FIR No.155/2007 under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/477A/120B at PS Lahori Gate against the petitioners. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to EOW. However, no charge sheet in respect of the said FIR has been filed by the police till date.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on 19.4.2007 the petitioners challenged the arbitration award dated 22.1.2007 in OMP No.203/2007 before this Court wherein vide order dated 20.4.2007 this Court issued notice to respondent No.2 for 17th August, 2007.
6. Thereafter, on 26.5.2007 the petitioners have amicably settled/compromised their all disputes/claims whatsoever with respondent No.2 and the petitioners No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-towards full and final settlement of all claims through the demand draft before the Court of ld.ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The respondent No.2 accepted the same without any protest. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.5.2007 was duly signed and executed by and between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
7. Mr. Bhardwaj further submits, in addition to that, respondent No.2 filed an affidavit dated 18.4.2011, wherein he clearly stated that he had compromised and settled all his disputes and monitory claims against the petitioners vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.5.2007 signed between the parties. It is further stated that he had received a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-from the petitioners in full and final settlement of all his disputes and claims against the petitioners, duly accepted by him in proceedings dated 23.5.3007 before the Court of learned ACMM, Delhi. It is further stated that the parties have withdrawn all the legal proceedings filed and pending between them.
8. Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate is present on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that he has settled all the issues in the aforesaid FIR and if the FIR is quashed he has no objection.
9. Mr. Manoj Yadav, Proxy Counsel for the main Counsel, Mr.Brajesh K. Srivastava submits that he has moved an application being Crl.M.A. No.2843/2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for impleadment of Satish Kumar Jain, Deepak Gupta, Yogesh Kumar, Anand Kumar, Gopal Krishna Jindal and Pranav Gupta. In the said application notice was issued on 8.4.2010 and directed to file the reply within three weeks. It is stated in the application that apart from the present FIR No.155/2007 on similar allegations, other four FIRs were also registered against them. Details of some a
