The court quashed the FIR as the underlying dispute was settled through arbitration, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Both criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking to quash the FIR No.136/2012 registered at Police Station Bhiwari Phase-III, District Alwar for offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC and consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that one contract was awarded by UIT in favour of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal through proprietor Ramesh Kumar Bansal, on whose behest the impugned FIR has been registered. Pursuant to that contract, one MOU was entered into between M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal and M/s Divija Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to carry out the construction at site. Both petitioners are directors in the Board of Directors of M/s Divija Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

It has been pointed out that the allegation against petitioners are that 'steal rod' measuring about sixty tons were missing at site though the payment of that material has got been released from the UIT. Hence, a grievance was raised by and on behalf of M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal firm for suffering a financial loss to the worth of misplaced material of 'steal rod'.

3. Learned counsel for both parties submit that apart from the impugned FIR, arbitration proceedings were separately commenced between the parties in connection with the breach of MOU and claiming outstanding amount against each other.

4. In such arbitration proceedings, the arbitration Tribunal of Hon'ble Justice D.C. Dalela was constituted by the High Court.

5. Before the Arbitration Tribunal, both parties submitted their claim and counter claim. M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal firm made a counter claim in the arbitration proceedings, claiming an amount of Rs. 5,87,053/- against M/s Divija Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for missing 'steal rod' weighing 60,781.62 Kgs.

6. It has been pointed out that during course of arbitration proceedings, both parties executed an agreement cum settlement and in pursuance thereof withdrew their respective claim and counter claim, including the claim for amount in respect of missing 'steal rod' from site, except to continue the criminal proceedings of one case under Section 138 N.I. Act.

7. In accordance with the compromise cum settlement arrived at between parties, the arbitration proceedings culminated into the award dated 23.09.2018. Copy of the award and copy of counter claim made by M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal have been placed on record.

8. In such view of the matter, it has been submitted from the side of petitioners that the very basis/ substratum of lodging impugned FIR in respect of suffering financial loss by M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal, on account of missing 'steal rod' has come to an end, with the withdrawal of their counter claim during the course of arbitration proceedings. Hence, there is no fruitful purpose to continue the prosecution of petitioners in the impugned FIR, hence same may be dropped.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant side M/s Ramesh Kumar Bansal does not dispute the aforesaid facts and passing of the award dated 23.09.2018 by the Arbitration Tribunal, in terms of the compromise cum settlement arrived at between parties.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that in the impugned FIR, although further investigation was stayed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4047/2013 qua Smt. Beena Goyal, however, the charge-sheet has been filed against another Director Satish Goyal, who has filed the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4033/2012 and proceedings are pending before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

11. Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the underlying dispute raised from the complainant in the impugned FIR has already been settled between parties before the Arbitration Tribunal during course of arbitration proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings in the impugned FIR obviously would be unwarranted, nay be held as abuse of process of law.

12. In such circumstances, this Court