Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Kaustav Mohan Dhar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 1163 of 2023, Cr.M.A. 4431 of 2023 and Cr.M.C. 5948 of 2022, Cr.M.A. 23330 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Vachher, Mr. Dhiraj, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Ms. Ramya Khanna and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Sahni, APP, for the State with Inspector Dharmendra Pratap Singh, PS EOW, Mandir Marg. Mr.R. D.Vats and Ms. Tavishi Vats, Advocates alongwith R-2, for the Respondent.
Private disputes can be quashed if settled voluntarily and within the legal framework.
Headnote:
Settlement - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 227 of the Constitution of India - 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the sale of a company and allegations of fraudulent transfer and forgery. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the complainant consented to quashing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was of a private and commercial nature, and the parties had voluntarily entered into a settlement without coercion. The court considered the settlement agreement and the complainant's consent to quash the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the settlement between the parties was voluntary and within the legal framework for quashing the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a private dispute is settled voluntarily and within the law, the proceedings may be quashed. The court considered the terms of the settlement agreement and the complainant's consent.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it, as the private dispute had been amicably settled.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 4432/2023 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 1163/2023 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1163/2023 and CRL.M.C. 5948/2022
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No. 77/2018 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the above mentioned FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No.2-complainant-Mrs. Raj Dulari Kaushik widow of Late Sh.Surinder Kumar Kaushik alleging therein that Sh. Kaustav Mohan Dhar introduced the complainant to Mr. Jaideep Mirchandani representing that Mr. Jaideep Mirchindani is a big investor of Dubai and will buy the company owned by the husband of the complainant namely, M/s Zexus Air Services from them. At that time, the company M/s Zexus Air Services was in a financial crunch. Subsequently Mr. Jaideep Mirchandani introduced his brother-in-law/Ravi Shankar Singh to enter into sale purchase agreement with late Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik in Dubai on 11.03.2016. The complainant has alleged as per the agreement, the consideration amount was Rs.20,04,90,000/- and the alleged accused persons were to clear the liability of Rs.2,40,00,000/- as per the mail sent by Kaustav Dhar regarding minutes of meeting dated 11.04.2016 and the remaining amount Rs.17,64,90,000/- was to be paid. However, this amount was never paid. The complainant had alleged that in the meanwhile, late Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik expired on 31.07.20216 in Canada and petitioner Mr. Ramesh Dugar approached her and showed his interest in buying the her husband's share in Rs.50,00,000/- which she refused.
3. The complainant has further alleged that Sh. Ramesh Dugar misguided her and told her to sit quite and not to interfere in the company matter in future. It has been alleged that in November, 2016, Mr. R. K. Sharma, who was the partner of the late Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik appointed Mr. Ramesh Dugar illegally in the company as a Director and further, Mr. Ramesh Dugar appointed Mr. Ravi Shankar and Mr. Kaushtav Dhar in the company as Directors and started operating their company on false ownership. The complainant alleged that in February 2016 she came to know that the accused persons were trying to sell her company M/s Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd in the market at a higher price. The complainant alleged that the accused persons fraudulent transferred her husband's share with the help of C.A. Jatin Gupta in the name of Ravi Shankar Singh. It was alleged that the 99.9% of the total share were transferred in the name of Ravi Shankar Singh even before the signing of the agreement dated 11.03.2016. The allegations were also made regarding the forgery of the documents. The complainant alleged that she still has the original papers with her.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, an agreement dated 11.03.2016 was entered into between the late Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik and Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh. In the said agreement, the clause 1.3 of Section 1, the purchase price was in numerical inadvertently written as 20,04,90,000/- whereas actually it was Rs.02,04,90,000/- only and in the word it was rightly written so. Learned senior counsel submits that unfortunately, Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik expired on 31.07.2016 and thereafter, the respondent No.2/wife of late Sh. Surinder Kumar Kaushik remained under the impression that petitioners had to pay a sum of Rs.20,04,90,000/- which gave rise to the present dispute. Learned senior counsel submits that the settlement has been entered into between the parties. The compromise settlement agreement dated 07.11.2022 has also been placed on the record.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that respondent No. 2 has filed a detailed affidavit also in CRL.M.C. 5948/2022 stating specifically that she herself and her legal heirs
