Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Amit Podar and Others – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others - Respondents.
Crl.M.C. 5746 of 2022 and Crl.M.A. 22643 of 2022
Decided on : 18-04-2023
Mr. Satya Prakash Sharan, Mr. Yash Prakash Sharan and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, advocates with petitioners in person.
Mr. Raghvinder Verma, APP for the State.
SI Avinash Kumar, PS EOW.
Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Ms. Kanika Vohra and Mr. Mudit Bir Kohli, Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 4 with respondents No. 2 & 3 in person.
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases of settlement depends on the nature and gravity of the crime, especially in commercial transactions.
Headnote:
Quashing - Commercial Transaction - IPC 406/120B - The court discussed the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the offender and the victim have settled their disputes. It emphasized that the nature and gravity of the crime, especially in commercial transactions, should be considered before exercising such power.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to quash FIR No. 198/2020 registered under sections 406/120B IPC at PS. Economic Offences Wing, arising from a commercial transaction involving gold bullion and jewellery. The parties reached a settlement during the pendency of the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case predominantly arose out of a commercial transaction and that the parties had voluntarily entered into a settlement without force, fear, or coercion. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its power to quash the criminal proceedings in a case where the parties have settled their commercial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of settlement depends on the nature and gravity of the crime, especially in commercial transactions. It cited previous judgments to support the principle that in cases of overwhelmingly civil nature, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No. 198/2020 registered under sections 406/120B IPC at PS. Economic Offences Wing and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 198/2020 registered under sections 406/120B IPC at PS. Economic Offences Wing. The FIR was lodged on the joint complaint of Sh. Sandeep Jain (Proprietor of Jain sons jewellers & also a partner in M/s G.J. Jewels), Nimit Jain (Proprietor of M/s Aurum Jewels) & Sanju Sharma (proprietor of M/s Dia Gold trading Company) against the petitioner/alleged persons i.e. (1) Amit Poddar, (2) Ms. Kajal Poddar w/o Amit Poddar, (3) Sanjay Tulshiyan (brother in law of Amit Poddar), (4) Sachin Jain @ Manish Jain (proprietor of Mis Happy Impex), (5) Nawal Soni (Proprietor of M/s Sri. chand Sarwan Kumar Jewellers) & (6) Mr. Karan Singh Soni (Proprietor M/s Bharat Verma Jewellers). In the FIR it was alleged that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4, are engaged in the business oftrading and manufacturing gold bullion, gold/diamond jewellery etc., had business relations/transactions amongst themselves, which commenced one year prior to the date of the alleged incident. It has been alleged that on 12 March 2020, when complainants visited the office of the petitioners, some stranger was already present, who was introduced as the supplier. Petitioners stated that gold was ready to be delivered at his Chandni Chowk Branch and insisted that the payment had to be made through RTGS in their account before the delivery of gold. All the victims, on assurance of supplying gold at a much lesser rate than the market rate, paid a total sum of Rs. 3,48,75,0001-. However, the said purchased gold was never delivered and the petitioner started avoiding their phone calls on one pretext or another. The said incident resulted in the filing of the present FIR.
2. Learned Counsel submits that the investigation in the present case is pending. During the pendency of which the parties have reached a settlement vide the settlement dated 17.10.2022. The terms and conditions of the settlement are as under:
1. That the Parties have amicably agreed to incorporate the “SALES RETURN” of the articles valuing a sum of Rs. 2,42,25000/- (rupees Two Crores Forty Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand), which subsequent to the sale of the same by the First Party to some of the members of the Second Party, had been returned by the aforesaid members of the Second Party to the First Party, had remained unaccounted.
2. That it has also been amicably agreed to in between and amongst the Parties that after deducting the value of the Sale Return from the alleged sum of Rs. 3,48,75000/- (Rs. Three Crore Forty Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only) the outstanding Sum of money which remains to be paid to the First Party by the Second Party is a sum of Rs. 1,06,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lacs Fifty thousand only).
3. That during the course of negotiations/settlement talks, as held subsequent to the intervention of Near and Dear ones and respectable members of society, it has been amicably agreed between the parties that the present dispute/litigation etc. pertaining to the FIR bearing no. 198/2020 dated 16.11.2020 P.S. Economic Offence Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi shall stand settled, fully and finally, after the Second Party collectively pay/repay a sum of Rs. 1,06,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lacs Fifty thousand only) to the First Party on account of the aforesaid dispute which is the final settled amount between the parties.
4. That the above mentioned settlement amount, of Rs. 1,06,50,000/- Rupees One Crore Six Lacs Fifty thousand only), has been amicably agreed between the parties to be settled in the following manner:—
A. That Sri. Amit Poddar shall pay Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs) which in turn would constitute a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) by way of Demand Drafts vide No. 211440 valuing a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only), No. 211439 valuing a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) and No. 211438 valuing a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Fi
