Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 22 (UTT)

Vinod Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-04

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 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. 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. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the employees of M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicant is serving as Assistant Customer Service Officer with the M/s Glexo Smith Kline Consumer healthcare Ltd. since April, 2003. He further submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the company and the respondent no. 2 and other partners of the firm, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant. He further submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the company and the respondent no. 2 and other partners of the firm, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant. He further submits that the offence is private in nature having no serious impact upon society, therefore, the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant and also the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed. 9. Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 also submits that since the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties, therefore the supplementary charge-sheet and the summoning order passed thereupon be quashed. 10. In a judgment rendered in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, complaint or F.I.R. can be quashed by High Court on the ground that the offender and the victim have settled the dispute and the offence is private in nature having no serious impact upon society. 11. This view is fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs C.B.I. & another reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677 has held as under:- “29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, the same has been made compoundable under Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with the leave of the Court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) becomes relevant. 30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them where under the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” 12. In view of the settlement arrived between the complainant and the applicant, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, which would tantamount to abuse of process of law. 13. Accordingly, criminal miscellaneous application is allowed. Supplementary charge-sheet dated 21.01.2014 and summoning order dated 22.08.2014 are hereby quashed qua present applicant.