IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.998/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI. ROHIT KHARIWAL S/O. LATE PANALLAL KHARIWAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT D BLOCK, FLAT NO. 008, MANTHRI ALPYENE, DR. VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061.
2. SRI. VIJAY PANALAL S/O. LATE PANALLAL KHARIWAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI ENCLAVE, 1/21/6, TF1, 3RD FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SUDHARSHAN L, ADV.) AND 1. STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. SRIPAL KUMAR JAIN S/O. LATE H. MOHANLAL, MAJOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OSWAL MINERALS LIMITED, NO.6, 2ND MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURA, BENGALURU CITY-560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI H.B.SOMNATH, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.21419/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,408,420,465,471, R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent no.2-complainant and the learned HCGP.
2. The petitioners and respondent no.2 have filed a joint memo and the same is signed by the petitioners and respondent no.2 and their respective counsels.
3. The matter was listed yesterday and on account of paucity of time, the case was not taken up for disposal and was directed to be listed today.
4. The complainant who was present yesterday made a request to the Court to permit him to travel to Vizag on account of the fact that his presence was urgently required there and with the leave of the Court, respondent no.2- complainant was permitted and his presence today before the Court was exempted.
5. The respondent no.2 on query from the Court, had categorically submitted that the complainant-Managing Director does not intend to continue with the complaint. That the issue arose on account of accounting problems and that the disagreements over the accounts have been amicably settled with the intervention of one Mrs. Tanisha Mundra, who has settled the account and repaid whatever the amounts that were finally due and hence, respondent no.2 does not desire to further prosecute the complaint.
6. The sum and substance of the allegation is that petitioner no.1 who was employed as Marketing Executive with respondent no.2-company, had while placing tenders, taking advantage of the system, took out demand drafts in the name of the co-accused instead of in the name of the tendering authority and that in some cases, the refunded security deposit paid by way of demand drafts has also not been accounted. On this basis, the respondent-police registered Crime No.0177/2014 on 07.08.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 471 & 34 IPC.
7. The joint memo which came to be filed into Court reads as under:
”1) It is submitted by both the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, through this joint memo for compromise that the Petitioners are arrayed as Accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable U/s.408,465,468,471,420,120(B),201 r/w 34 of IPC in CC No.21419/16 on the file of Srirampura Police station and pending on the file of learned 4th ACMM at Bengaluru.
2) It is submitted by both the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 during the pendency of the above matter with intervention of well wishers and legal practitioners the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have decided to resolve the dispute between them by entering into a compromise .
3) It is submitted by both the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 that in view of the settlement arrived between them, one Mrs. Tanisha Mundra on behalf of the 1st Petitioner has repaid the mutually agreed settlement amount to the company i.e. M/s. Oswal Minerals Limited, represented by Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 acknowledges for having received the said amount which they were claiming from the Petitioners and further agreed to withdraw the allegations alleged against the Petitioners and not to prosecute them.
4) It is submitted that, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have mutually agreed between then and entered this compromise Petition before this Hon’ble Court in the above case and prays this Hon’ble Court’s indulgence to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in terms of this compromise Petition.
5) That the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have entered into this compromise Petition on their own will, without any undue influence, coercion, without any force from anybody and after proper application of mind and understanding the contents of the Petition.
WHEREFORE it is prayed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the joint memo of Compromise, and to quash the charge Sheet against the Petitioners in C.C.No.21419/2016 on the file of Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru and pending on the file of learned IV ACMM at Bengaluru for the offences punishable U/s.408,465,468,471,420,120(B),201 r/w 34 of IPC, in the ends of justice.”
8. The allegations arise out of monetary transactions involving petitioner no.1, who it is alleged, has not accounted for the refund of security deposit from the tendering authority and that there is also mismatch in the accounts and the same amounts to misappropriation.
9. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The allegations are by a private entity against its employee. The private entity and its employee-the petitioner herein having resolved the dispute which relates to accounting for the amounts expended during the tender process, this Court is of the opinion that the same would relate to a dispute arising out of an accounting process and it is apparent that the parties have resolved to amicably settle the issues with the intervention of third parties.
10. Having perused the charge sheet, it is seen that the offences punishable under Sections 408, 465 & 471 IPC are premised on precocious material. Be that as it may, the complainant having accepted the payments in lieu of the alleged loss suffered by him, he cannot be expected to be a willing witness in the proceedings before the Court below. The settlement having been entered into at the instance of third parties and well-wishers, there is little scope for the complainant to act otherwise contrary to the settlement brought about by the well-wishers. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that if the parties are directed to face the trial and take it to its logical end, it would be a sheer waste of judicial time and would result in abuse of process of law.
11. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB – (2012)10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner herein, the instant petition requires to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.21419/2016 pending on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.0177/2014 registered with the respondent-Police stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR