V.N. Gupta and Others vs State and Another

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint case No. 91/1/02 titled A.P. Arora Vs. V. N. Gupta & Ors

u/s 471 read with section 34 IPC pending in the Court of Shri Deepak Sehrawat, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, New Delhi. Briefly

stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner nos.1 and the respondent No. 2 entered into a collaboration agreement on 30.10.1992 for

developing the plot bearing No. 287, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. In the year 1992-93, the plot was stated to have been developed in

terms of the agreement. In the year 1993, the respondent No. 2 felt aggrieved on account of certain deficiency on the part of the petitioner No. 1,

and accordingly, he invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement and filed a suit bearing No. 2521/1993. In February, 2002, the respondent

No. 2 filed a criminal complaint in question u/s 200 Cr.P.C., against V.N.Gupta/petitioner No. 1, R.P.Gupta/ petitioner No. 2 and

S.P.Garg/petitioner No. 3 stating that they in furtherance of their common intention, have committed the offence of cheating and criminal

conspiracy, which is punishable u/s 420 read with section 463/ 464/ 468/ 471/ 120B IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the pre

summoning evidence of the respondent No. 2, passed an order on 23.10.2004 summoning the petitioners for an offence u/s 471/ 34 IPC. In the

meantime, in the year 2007, the respondent No. 2 filed an execution petition in respect of award in his favour passed on 04.03.1999. On

18.04.2008, the dispute between the parties was settled and the petitioner No. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 2 moved a joint application under

Order XXI Rule 1 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for disposal of the matter as settled. In terms of the compromise,

the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 agreed to pay an amount of approximately Rs. 20,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the execution

application bearing No. 172/2008 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. After expiry of more than one and a half years, the

respondent No. 2 filed a misconceived execution application No. 149/2009 stating that the settlement which was arrived at between the petitioners

and the respondent No. 2 in the execution petition was not a genuine one, and accordingly, he wanted to pursue his execution application. This

application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 13.11.2009 and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondent No. 2. The

petitioners, on account of such conduct of the respondent No. 2, filed a contempt application bearing No. 130/2009 as in terms of the

compromise, the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to withdraw the complaint initiated by him. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.07.2010,

the CCP bearing No. 130/2009, in execution petition bearing No. 132/3007, the Court directed that a joint application shall be filed by the parties

for quashing the criminal complaint which was initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners within a period of two weeks. The

respondent No. 2, while appearing before the Court had agreed to cooperate, but despite the fact that a draft regarding the quashing of the

criminal complaint is purported to have been sent by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners, the former did not come to sign the same with the

result that the criminal complaint against the petitioners continue to be pursued by the respondent No. 2.

This led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioners, seeking quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings before the

learned Trial Court, on the ground that the continuance of this proceeding against them is a gross abuse of processes of law by the respondent No.

They had filed a joint application that on receipt of the agreed amount, the respondent No. 2 shall withdraw the criminal complaint against the

present petitioners. This assurance was primarily given by the respondent No. 2 not only once but also twice in as much as on 23.07.2010 this

Court directed the respondent No. 2 to file such a joint application within two weeks which was not done, despite the fact that a copy of the

application was purportedly sent to the petitioners by the respondent No. 2.

I am informed that the petitioners, after the disposal of the execution application bearing EA No. 172/2008 on 23.04.2008, the respondent No.

2 filed an appeal bearing No. EFA (OS) No. 47/2009 and C.M. No. 18892/2009 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on

10.10.2011, by observing that the plea that there was coercion and loss of mental balance on the part of the respondent No. 2 is rather strange on

his part as was alleged by him for getting the compromise arrived at between him and the petitioners. On the contrary, the Division Bench

observed that the respondent No. 2 was trying to shift the blame of the compromise on the senior counsel who was representing him. The Court

felt that after having not only pocketed the entire money and signed the compromise application, appeared in the Court and acknowledged the

compromise. The Division Bench had not interfered with the compromise order dated 23.04.2008.

The respondent No. 2 cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, in as much as he signed the settlement deed with the petitioners

and got the same recorded before the Court and made them to pay a substantial amount of money and yet continued to keep them on limbo. Such

a conduct, on the part of the respondent No. 2 is a gross abuse of processes of law which cannot be permitted to be continued as it will only put a

premium to dishonest and unscrupulous litigants. I, accordingly, feel that the request of the respondent No. 2, who has prayed for an adjournment

on the ground that he has filed a special leave petition, is not only unfair but also unprincipled. I find that this is a fit case where the continuance of

the complaint and the proceedings u/s 471 read with section 34 IPC against the present petitioners at the instance of the respondent No. 2, by way

of a complaint in case titled A.P. Arora Vs. V. N. Gupta & Ors is a gross abuse of process of law, accordingly, the complaint and consequent

proceedings are quashed. The present petition is allowed. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for the purpose of information.