Chandrashekar Gupta and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—These two petitions are filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in P.C.R. No. 53046/2013 registered as Crime No. 765/2013 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No. 116/2013 pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 480 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. The parties are present before the Court i.e., in Cri.P. No. 7814/2013 the petitioner No. 2 Y.N. Ramachandran who is arrayed as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 765/2013 is present and the respondent No. 2 Sri. Naveen Varadarajan is present before the Court. In Cri.P. No. 6483/2013 the first petitioner Sri. Naveen Varadarajan is present and Sri. Y.N. Ramachandran, Vice President (Finances) of the second respondent -Company is present before the Court. They have accepted that the matter has been compromised before the Company Law Board, Chennai Branch and they have squared up their differences. They have filed affidavit in this regard seeking quashing of both the criminal proceedings noted above which are pending before the competent jurisdictional courts.

On perusal of the affidavit of Sri. Y.N. Ramachandran, Vice-President (Finance) of the Company, it discloses that the disputes between the parties are largely financial in nature and their dispute has now came to be fully settled in accordance with the compromise petition filed before the Company Law Board, Chennai, in Company Petition No. 73/2013 and the said company petition came to be allowed in accordance with the compromise petition dated 25.4.2014.

It appears, because of the financial dispute between the parties, both the parties might have filed criminal complaints against each other. When the conflict between the parties are resolved by way of compromise between the parties before the Company Law Board, there remains nothing between them. In order to facilitate them to continue their business relationship and also to live peacefully without ordeal of trial before Criminal Court, it is just and necessary to allow their prayer.

I have also carefully perused the compromise petition filed before the Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 73/2013 which discloses that all the financial disputes have been squared up between the parties by mutual agreement. At paragraph No. 8 of the compromise petition the parties have also agreed to undertake to give their consent before this Court for allowing the Criminal Petition No. 6483/2013 and also Criminal Petition No. 7814/2013 for quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. Before giving affirmation to the compromise entered into between the parties, it is just and necessary to have in mind the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court have given some guidelines under what circumstances the Court can exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings whenever the parties have compromised the matter in respect of the non-compoundable offences. The Hon''ble Apex Court held thus:

"Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., of under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim''s family and offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."

"But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings. However the High Court, in such cases, 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 parties and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end."

Applying the above principle so far as these cases are concerned, though the cases are criminal in nature, they have arisen because of the financial disputes between the parties arising from commercial and financial differences between the parties and the wrong alleged against each other is basically private and personal in nature. Therefore, when the entire disputes between the parties have been settled amongst themselves by means of a compromise, there is no legal impediment for this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Therefore, the following order is passed:--

"The above said petitions are hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in P.C.R. No. 53046/2013 (in Crime No. 765/2013) pending on the file of Banasawadi Police Station consequently the FIR pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 read with section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. So far as it relates to the petition No. 6483/2013, the proceedings in Crime No. 116/2013 of Airport Police Station and consequent registration of the FIR before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 408, 420 read with section 34 of IPC is also hereby quashed."