Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000208
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6864/2022
JASMEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Verma with Ms. Rakshita
Kachroo, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State
with SI PR Hudda, PS IGI Airport.
Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocate for
respondent No.2 with respondent
No.2 in person.
th
% Date of Decision: 16 December, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.26605/2022 & Crl.M.A.26606/2022 (exemption)
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022
1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No. 0158/2022, under Sections 43/66 (D) Information
Technology Act, 2000 and Section 381, IPC 1860 registered at Police
Station IGI Airport lodged on the statement of the respondent No.2 - Mr.
Sumit Ranjan, the Director of Gozero Mobility Pvt. Ltd. In the FIR the
complainant has made several allegations against the petitioner including
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI
VERMA
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000208
siphoning of the funds of the Company; threatening to leave the job without
stipulated notice; misbehavior in the office and not discharging the dues
properly. However, now the parties have reached at an amicable settlement
vide Settlement Agreement dated 30.11.2022. The same has been placed on
record.
2. Perusal of the Settlement Agreement also reflects that the petitioner
was an employee with Gozero Mobility Pvt. Ltd.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was
another complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
which was filed by one Sh. Satpal Singh against the complainant Company.
Learned counsel also submits that the Settlement Agreement also records
that Sh. Satpal Singh, who is the uncle of the petitioner, had advanced a
short-term loan of Rs. 28,00,000/- to the Company and certain post-dated
cheques were issued by the Company. Now the money has been returned
back to Sh. Satpal Singh and the parties have agreed to put a quietus to the
entire disputes.
4. Besides the present FIR and the complaint under Section 138
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, there is a suit for recovery bearing CS No.
175/2022 pending in the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Both the parties
are present in person before this Court and have been duly identified by the
IO. It has been submitted that now the parties have decided to unequivocally
and unconditionally settle all their disputes voluntarily and of their own free
will without any force or coercion. The Settlement Agreement dated
30.11.2022 records that the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI
VERMA
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000208
Instrument Act, 1881, and the civil suit bearing CS No.175/2002 shall also
be withdrawn.
5. The High Court being the highest court of a State is conferred with
the power of control and superintendence over all courts subordinate to it.
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC also
acknowledge the inherent powers of the High Courts. High Courts can
exercise its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC either to prevent abuse of the
process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However,
exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The powers possessed by the High Courts under section 482
CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. The powers under section 482 CrPC are to be
exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and in the rarest of the
rare cases. Thus, the power under section 482 CrPC must be exercised very
sparingly to render real and substantial justice to the parties. The High Court
would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, where
it finds that non-interference shall result in abuse of the process of the court
or failure of justice, or where grave injustice is shown to have been caused
and requires to be undone, or where the complaint does not make out any
triable case against the petitioner.
6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi
Narayan & Ors. , (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Apex Court has inter alia held that
the inherent power conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide plenitude
with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI
VERMA
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000208
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. The Apex Court
held that the power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR in
cases where the offender and the victim have settled their disputes would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the
offender have settled the dispute as such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing
for the purposes of quashing. These include offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. It has been held that in these
category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. The
Apex Court thus held that the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI
VERMA
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000208
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question (s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
7. This Court considers that the dispute in the present case was
predominantly a dispute between an employer and employee with shades of
commercial transactions. The alleged dispute is thus civil in nature. The
business/transactional disputes between the parties are settled and therefore
continuance of the FIR bearing No. 0158/2022 and the proceedings emanating
therefrom , given that the parties have amicably arrived at a settlement would
serve no useful purpose, may cause prejudice to the petitioner and be an
exercise in futility.
8. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement. It is better to put a
quietus to the dispute in view of the settlement agreement between the
parties. Parties seem to have entered the settlement voluntarily without any
force, fear and coercion.
9. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances, the case
FIR No. 0158/2022, under Sections 43/66 (D) Information Technology Act,
2000 and Section 381, IPC 1860 registered at Police Station IGI Airport and
all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
10. The present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 16, 2022/st
CRL.M.C. 6864/2022 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PALLAVI
VERMA