SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 17125

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 6274/2024 & CRL.M.A. 24021/2024 REJIMON JOSE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. V. Thomas, Mr. Rajat Pahwa and Mr. Rohan Nair, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State.

SI Robin Khatana, ASI Satyapal, PS Moti Nagar CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Advocates:
ASHWIN VAISH

O R D E R

% 02.09.2024

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing FIR No. 486/2019 dated 31.10.2019 registered at Police Station Moti Nagar for offences under Section 409 IPC.

2. The case against the Petitioner is that when he was working as a Supervisor in a Branch Office situated in Bali Nagar, New Delhi, certain packets of gold ornaments which had been entrusted by the customers of Respondent No.2 went missing.

3. It is stated that the packets of the gold ornaments had been made good by the Petitioner to the company. A settlement has been entered into and an affidavit has been filed by the Authorized Representative of Respondent No.2 and the same reads as under:-

“I, Sunil Barthwal, Son of Late Shri J.P. Barthwal, Authorized Representative of Muthoot Finance CRL.M.C. 6274/2024 Page 1 of 6 Limited, having its Corporate Office (North) at MG George Muthoot Towers, Alaknanda, New Delhi- 110019, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of Muthoot Finance Ltd., the Respondent No. 2 Company and authorized to represent the Respondent No.2 in the accompanying Petition and as such conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and thus competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. The contents of the accompanying petition for quashing FIR No. 486/2019 dated 31.10.2019 Police Station Moti Nagar under Section 409, 424 IPC & proceedings arising therefrom pending with the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing Cr. Cases/12239/2021, titled State Vs. Rejimon Jose. has been read over and understood by me.

3. I say that, without prejudice to its rights and contentions as well as further without prejudice to the contents of its complaint made to the police and/or of the subject FIR, the Complainant (Respondent No.2 herein) Mis. Muthoot Finance Limited has no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased to quash the aforesaid FIR and/or the proceedings emanating therefrom on account of settlement of the dues/loss amount.”

4. The AR of Respondent No.2 is present in Court today. There is also an Authorization Letter given in favour of the AR of the company, which reads as under:-

“I, Mukesh Khare, Sr. Deputy General Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, Corporate Oftice (orth) at M.G. George Muthoot Towers, Alaknanda, New Delhi- 110019 (Company`), do hereby authorize Mr. Sunil CRL.M.C. 6274/2024 Page 2 of 6 Barthwal, Senior Chief Manager (Employee ID- DM00185) and Authorized Representative, to represent the Company in Crl. M.C.6274 of 2024, titled as Rejimon Jose Ts. State and another, pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

He is further authorized to give statement No Objection in the afore-referred petition for quashing of FIR No. 486/2019, dated 31.10.2019, PS-Moti Nagar and to do all other acts deeds or things, as may be necessary for any of the above purposes, for and on behalf of the Company. He is further authorized to engage and appoint Advocates Vakils, Solicitors, pleaders etc. as the case may be, and to sign Vakalatnamas, other documents and to do all other acts, deeds or things, as may be necessary or proper for all or any of the above purposes and to effectively discharge the duties casted upon him. Validity of the present Authorization Letter is restricted to the period till 31.12.2024 and /or till revocation of the same and/or till cessation of the employment of the above employee, whichever is earlier. The authorization is extendable upon the nature of the case and circumstances. Dated this 1 day of August, 2024”

5. The effect of the letter is that Respondent No.2 has decided not to actively proceed against the Petitioner.

6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the settlement contending that this is an offence which ought not to be settled because (a) it is a serious offence involving punishment of life imprisonment; (b) that Respondent No.2 which is an NBFC, cannot enter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top