The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties and the private nature of the offence, as provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

1. By means of this criminal miscellaneous application, applicant has challenged supplementary charge-sheet filed on 31.07.2014 and the proceedings arising out of the said charge-sheet against the applicant.

2. It transpires that Puneet Mittal (respondent No. 2) is partner in a firm, namely M/s Vinayak Traders, 32 Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun. The said partnership firm was appointed as Carrying and Forwarding Agent (CFA) by M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer healthcare Ltd. and the firm was maintaining the warehouse of M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer healthcare Ltd. at Dehradun. Respondent no. 2 filed an F.I.R. on 24.11.2013 at P.S. Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun alleging that part of stock supplied by M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer healthcare Ltd. has been siphoned off by one of his employee, Mr. Ramesh Bisht in collusion with some other persons.

3. Based on the said F.I.R., investigation was conducted and the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against Mr. Ramesh Bisht and Rajan Gupta on 21.01.2014. Thereafter, on 31.07.2014, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed by Investigating Officer against five employees of M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer healthcare Ltd. including present applicant. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on supplementary charge-sheet and summoned the applicant vide order dated 22.08.2014. Thus, applicant has approached this Court for quashing of the summoning order as well as supplementary charge-sheet.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the parties have entered into a settlement. Memorandum of Settlement has been enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. He has referred to the affidavits filed by Mr. Puneet Mittal and other partners in the firm, namely, Smt. Shilpi Mittal and Smt. Nidhi Mittal, which have been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the application in which all the partners have stated that the F.I.R. was lodged under certain misconceptions and miscommunications between the firm and the company in relation to business dealings regarding unauthorized writing off the goods of the company. It has further been stated in these affidavits that all misconceptions have been cleared between the parties.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant further submits that all disputes between the parties have been resolved and a Memorandum of Settlement has been produced before the Arbitrator. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the statement of Mr. Puneet Mittal (respondent no. 2) recorded before the sole Arbitrator in arbitration proceedings on 08.07.2016. The statement of Mr. Puneet Mittal as recorded in the order of sole arbitrator, is extracted below:-

“I am authorized representative of the two partners of the Respondent No. 1 namely Ms. Nidhi Mittal and Ms. Shilpi Mittal and I am the Respondent No. 2 myself. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on 19.06.2015, copy of which is before the Tribunal. The two partners Nidhi Mittal and Shilpi Mittal, who are respondent No. 3 and 4 signed the Memorandum of Settlement in my presence. I also signed the Memorandum of Settlement. I have no objection in an award being passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement.

The Memorandum of Settlement requires the Respondent to cooperate in quashing of FIR No. 357 of 2013 of Police Station Kotwali Dehradun and for this purpose to appear before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand and to execute supporting documents as mentioned in Clause C2 of MOS. The application for quashing the FIR being Criminal Misc. No. 757 of 2015 has not been disposed of so far although it was listed once but was not taken up. I undertake to fulfill the conditions mentioned in clause C2 of the MOS whenever the application for quashing of the FIR is taken up by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand. I have already filed an affidavit in terms of clause C2.”

7. Lea