SRINIVASAN IYENGAR vs. BIMLA DEVI AGARWAL .

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2986 of 2015] Srinivasan Iyenger and Anr. .. Appellants Versus  Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. .. Respondents (WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No.  2990 of 2015)  J U D G M E N T M. R. SHAH, J. Leave granted in both the appeals. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and, as such, these appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, both these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND common judgment. Date: 2019.02.16 12:09:38 IST Reason: 2 2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Petition No. 634 of 2014, by which the High Court has rejected the said application preferred by the Appellants   herein   to   quash   the   criminal   proceedings   initiated against   them   by   Respondent   No.   1   herein   –   the   original Complainant,   the   original   Accused   –   original   Applicants   have preferred the present appeals.   3. That a private complaint came to be filed by the original Complainant (Respondent  No.  1  herein)  through  her  husband (Respondent   No.   2   herein   and   power   of   attorney   holder   of Respondent No. 1) before the Court of learned CJM at Tinsukia, Assam against the Appellants herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 120­B IPC.  At this stage, it is required to be noted that Respondent No. 4 – company can be said to be a broker agent of the Reliance Life Insurance Company and the relationship between them is governed by the Insurance Regulatory   and   Development   Authority   (Insurance   Brokers) Regulations,   2002.     That   the   original   Complainant   filed   a 3 complaint against in all 12 persons.  That the said complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 42C of 2014.   4. It was the case of the original Complainant that she was the holder of an insurance policy issued by the ICICI Life Prudential in the month of August, 2013.    4.1 It was alleged that the complainant received a call from one Sri Navin Mittal, who identified himself as an Executive Officer of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 4.2 It   was   further   alleged   that   the   said   caller   informed   the complainant   over   phone   that   as   per   the   instruction   of   the Insurance   Regulatory   and   Development   Authority   (for   short “IRDA”),   “the   fund   related   to   Life   Insurance   Policy   of   the complainant   with   the   ICICI   Life   Prudential   has   been   released through   the   Reliance   Life   Insurance   and   also   informed   that bonus amount of Rs.19,245/­, Rs.1,94,730/­ and Rs.96,500/­ against the said life insurance policy is ready to be disbursed in favour   of   the   complainant   by   the   Reliance   Life   Insurance Company Ltd. (Accused no. 1 in C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014) 4 4.3 It   was   further   alleged   that   the   said   caller   had   further requested   the   complainant   to   send   a   cheque   for   Rs.50,000/­ drawn in favour of the Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Pan Card and identity cards of the family members of complainant for verification.  The caller also informed the complainant that after necessary verification, the amount in the said cheque together with   bonus   amount   would   be   released   in   favour   of   the complainant. 4.4 It was further alleged that believing such statements to be true, the complainant sent a cheque of Rs.50,000/­ to Accused no. 1 along with copies of other documents, sought for.  The said cheque of Rs.50,000/­ was received by Accused No. 1 in due course.     Thereafter,   in   the   month   of   November   2013,   the complainant received another call from phone No. 09210657675. This   time,   the   callers   were   Smt.   Meenakshi   Rawat   and   Sri Deepak Kapoor. 4.5 It   was   further   alleged   that   these   callers   introduced themselves to be the Executive Officers of Accused no. 1.   The second caller also narrated the facts which were already narrated to the complainant by the first caller.   The second caller also 5 requested   the   complainant   to   send   one   more   cheque   of Rs.42,000/­ drawn in favour of Accused no. 1. 4.6 It   was   further   alleged   that   they   also   informed   the complainant that if the said cheque for Rs.42,000/­ was not sent by the complainant, the bonus amount could not be released. They, however, assured the complainant that the amounts so paid   through   cheque   in   favour   of   Accused   No.   1   would   be refunded to the complainant immediately after the verification of her identity.  Being so influenced, the complainant through her attorney   issued   another   cheque   of   Rs.42,000/­   in   favour   of Accused No. 1. 4.7 It was further alleged that after a few days of issuance of the said two cheques, the complainant received two life insurance policies in the month of December 2013 issued by Accused no. 1, duly signed by the Accused nos. 2 and 3 through its branch office at Guwhati and, in both the policies, the policy holder has been shown   as   complainant   herself,   but   in   one   policy,   the   life   of complainant has been shown as assured, but in another policy the life of complainant’s son Sri Samir Bajaj has been shown as assured and the client ID of policy holder has been numbered as 6 86605617, Contract No. 51168554 dated 10.10.2013 and Client ID No. 86948411, Contract No. 51321645 dated 28.11.2013 and the amount of Rs.49,999.68 and Rs.41,999.89 has been shown as first premium receipt against the said two policies and the said amount has been collected through the bank account of complainant by using the aforesaid two cheques by Accused no. 1. 4.8 It was then further alleged that in both the policies, Accused no. 4 has been named as broker/agent of Accused no. 1 through which the aforesaid two policies have been issued in the name of the   complainant   and   in   one   policy   bearing   contract   No. 51168554, the medical report of complainant has been shown to be enclosed therein which has been issued by the Accused no. 11 ­ Sales Manager of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. 4.9 It was then further alleged that, on receipt of the said two policies,   on   being   surprised,   the   complainant   through   her husband made contact with the office staff of Accused no. 1 in Tinsukia branch office and also called over the phone numbers from which the complainant received the calls in the month of August 2013 and November 2013 and enquired about the matter, 7 but the caller misguided the complainant by saying that the said policies   have   been   issued   due   to   some   mistake   and   also requested the complainant to bear with them for sometime as they are working over the matter and assured the complainant that she will get her amount back within a very short span of time. 4.10 It was further alleged that, finding no other alternative, the complainant waited for sometime and made contact with these callers and asked them about her money but all the time the callers assured that the work is in progress and since the matter has been referred to their high officials for their sanction, so it will take some time.  The complainant all the time with a hope that the company of such a reputation will definitely return her money, waited for the same. 4.11 It was further alleged that, subsequently, on careful perusal of the policies, the complainant surprisingly noticed that neither she nor her husband nor her son ever signed any proposal form or any other documents which were required at the time of taking the life insurance policies, as per the rules and regulations of IRDA, nor even appeared for any medical examination before any 8 doctor or hospital authority, but the policies were issued in the name   of   the   complainant,   moreover   the   booklet   of   policy containing the First Premium Receipt, policy schedule, proposal form, medical report are all Xerox copy and all the documents, even the First Premium Receipt and policy schedule do not bear any original signature of signatory i.e. Accused nos. 2 and 3 – Appellants herein. 4.12 It was further alleged that, the proposal forms were shown to   be   signed   by   the   complainant,   but   the   complainant   never signed over the said policies and it is abundantly clear that her signatures   are   forged   for   the   wrongful   gain   by   the   accused persons.  It has been further revealed that the accused persons in   conspiracy   with   each   other   forged   the   signatures   of   the complainant, her husband and her son Sri Samir Bajaj with an intention to deceive them for the wrongful gain.  The said policies were issued through Accused no. 4 and all the accused persons are related to each other and interested persons who are getting monetary benefits for the issuance of these life insurance policies and all the accused persons are involved in committing the crime of   cheating,   forgery,   criminal   misappropriation   of   money   and 9 criminal conspiracy.  It is crystal clear that at the very inception of conversation with the complainant through her husband, the accused persons have been in conspiracy with each other and induced the complainant to deliver the cheques with an intention to deceive the complainant for the wrongful gain. 5. That, thereafter, the Appellants herein – original Accused nos.   1   to   3   approached   the   High   Court   by   way   of   Criminal Petition   No.   634   of   2014   praying   for   quashing   the   criminal proceedings in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC.   That by impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015, the High Court has dismissed the same and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings.  Hence, the original Accused nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals. 6. At the time of issuance of notice on 17.04.2015, this Court directed the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,75,000/­ to be utilized, if necessary, for awarding costs to the Respondents ­ complainant.   It is reported that the Appellants have deposited the same with the Registry. 10 7. Heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   both   the parties at length.     8. During the hearing of these appeals, the learned counsel for the Appellants agreed to pay to the original Complainant a total sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten lakh only) towards the full and final settlement of the claim of the original Complainant and it is agreed that, on such payment, the claimant will not proceed with the complaint any further and that the parties may be permitted to compound the offences. 9. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original Complainant   has   stated   that   the   original   Complainant   is agreeable to accept a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ offered and that, on such payment, the complainant has no objection if the offences against the Appellants are compounded and the criminal proceedings initiated against them are quashed.    10.   Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original Complainant has submitted that the Appellants may deposit a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/­ in the bank account of the original Complainant, the particulars of which are already on record, and 11 on doing so, the Appellants may be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,75,000/­ plus interest if any, already deposited by them. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective   parties   and   that   now   the   parties   have   settled   the dispute amicably and that the dispute between the parties seems to   be  having   predominant   element   of   a   civil   dispute   and   the origin is predominantly or overwhelming a civil dispute, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the power under Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   to   meet   the   ends   of justice. 12. We   are   of   the   opinion   that   on   payment   of   total   sum   of Rs.10,00,000/­ by the Appellants to the original Complainant, as agreed between the parties, the criminal proceedings be quashed, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of  Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat   (2017) 9 SCC 641 and  Gian Singh v. State of Punjab  (2012) 10 SCC 303.   13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we allow the   parties   to  compound   the   offences,   even  though   the 12 offences alleged are non­compoundable, as the dispute between the parties predominantly or overwhelming seems to be of a civil nature and that the dispute is a private one and between the two private parties.  Accordingly, it is ordered that on payment of a sum   of   Rs.10,00,000/­   by   the   Appellants   to   the   original Complainant to be deposited in the bank account of the original Complainant   within   a   period   of   two   weeks,   the   criminal proceedings being C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014 pending in the Court of learned CJM, Tinsukia, stand quashed.   On furnishing proof of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/­, the Registry to return the amount   of   Rs.3,75,000/­   along   with   interest,   if   any,   to   the Appellants herein, which the Appellants have deposited pursuant to the earlier order of this Court. 14. The present appeals stand disposed of accordingly in terms of the above. ……………………………………J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ……………………………………J. (M. R SHAH) New Delhi; February 15, 2019.