Allowed

Girish Purohit v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Jul 2024CRMP/497/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR and pending criminal proceedings arising from a commercial dispute between shareholders after finding a full and final compromise between the parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR Crime No. 204/2019 and Criminal Case No. 12179/2019 quashed.

Girish Purohit Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:CGHC:27394-DB

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 497 of 2020

¶5

Girish Purohit S/o Ramesh Chandra Tulsidas Purohit, Aged About 54 Years R/o Sakinan Flat No. 3, Magan Bagh, Chitabai Patel Road, Kandiwali, Police Station Samta Nagar, East Mumbai (M.H.), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶6

Haresh Purohit, S/o Ramesh Chandra Tulsidas Purohit, Aged About 57 Years R/o Sakinan Flat No. 3, Magan Bagh, Chitabai Patel Road, Kandiwali, Police Station Samta Nagar, East Mumbai (M.H.), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer ( S H O ), Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Manoj Sachdeo S/o Shri Harimal Sachdeo, Aged About 50 Years R/o Raman Mandir Ward No. 20, Street No. 1 Fafadih, Ganj Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

	... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent/ State	: Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, P.L
For Respondent No.2	: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur Chawla, Advocate (through virtual mode)

¶12

Division Bench:

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

26.07.2024

¶17

1. The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶18

1973 filed by the petitioners/ Accused persons for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 204/2019 registered at Police Station Kharora, Dist-

¶19

Raipur for the offence under Sections 420 and 408 of IPC and quashing of the further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 12179/2019 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur arising out of the aforesaid crime No. The petitioners have prayed the following relief in the present petition:-

¶20

“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for its kind perusal.

¶21

2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR no. 204/2019 dated 22/05/2019 registered at Police Station Kharora, Dist- Raipur and Criminal Case No. 12179/2019 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.

¶22

3. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. filed on 07.11.2019 bearing final report no. 267/2019 (Annexure-P/7) and the consequential proceedings.”

¶23

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were the promised share holders of the firm M/s Sachdeo Scientific Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (SSEPL) which was a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said Company was engaged in manufacturing and exporting their products under the brand number of "KASABLANKA" and in lieu of the business, a sum of Rs. 1,66,00,000/- was paid by the petitioners to Dilip Sachdeo, Manoj Sachdeo and Surendra Sachdeo on their assurance that the present petitioners would be made Directors and Share Holders of the Company. On 20/02/2014, the petitioners have been made the Directors of the said SSEPL Company and ultimately on 13/01/2017, the petitioners were made 24.5%- 24.5% (in total 49%) Share Holders of the said SSEPL Company.

¶24

3. One Manoj Sachdeo, with the intention to oust the petitioners from the Company, lodged a false complaint on 22/05/2019 with the allegation that the petitioners were appointed in their factory as Director (Sales and Marketing) and they have committed breach of trust with the Company. Both the accused persons/ petitioners without their consent

¶25

and information, took 17 moulds amounting to Rs. 13 Lakhs from Saragaon factory under the pretext of its repairing and got a trade mark in the name of "KASABLANKA". While under the employment they have committed cheating by establishing the manufacturing unit and purchasing the moulds in the name of “KASABLANKA” and started selling the product. On the report of the complainant, Manoj Sachdeo, the FIR under Section 420 and 408 of IPC has been registered on 22/05/2019.

¶26

4. After investigation the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution on 07/11/2019 and a Criminal Case No. 12179/2019 has been registered against the present petitioners which is pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, which are under challenge in the present petition.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after registration of the FIR against the present petitioners, the parties have entered into a compromise and a settlement agreement has also been executed between the parties on 03.06.2019 which is filed in the present petition as Annexure P/4. Since the dispute has been resolved and the matter has been compromised between the parties, there is no ultimate chance of their conviction and therefore, the impugned FIR as well as the criminal proceeding against the petitioners may be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

¶28

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/ complainant has not disputed the fact that they have entered into the compromise and settled their dispute, as also the contents of the settlement agreement executed between the parties on 03/06/2019. In view of the settlement agreement dated 03/06/2019 (Annexure-P/4), the complainant is having no objection in quashing of the FIR as well as the Criminal proceeding of the criminal case arising out of the Crime

¶29

No. 204/2019 registered at Police Station Kharora, Dist- Raipur (Criminal Case No. 12179/2019) pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.

¶30

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the document annexed with the petition by either side as well as the settlement agreement dated 03/06/2019 (Annexure-P/4)

¶31

8. The terms of settlement between the parties as reflected in the settlement agreement dated 03/06/2019 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

¶32

1. Settlement Terms

¶33

The parties hereby fully and finally settle all disputes and other differences that have arisen between the parties on the following terms.

¶34

a . Second Party shall without any delay resign from the directorship of First Party.

¶35

b . Second Party shall forthwith, hand over any and all First Party's documents, materials, data or any other information in their possession to Second Party with any affiliates of Second Party. Further, the details of part of belongings, as identified by the First Party, have been specifically mentioned in Schedule A to this Agreement. It is to be noted that the belongings of First Party as mentioned in Schedule A of this Agreement.

¶36

c . Second Party agrees to provide a positive feedback and reference sought by any third parties regarding First Partyand shall immediately stop sending negative feedback/messages to the clients or vendors or distributors of First Party.

¶37

d . Second Party hereby confirms that the amount of Rs 1,66,00,000 (Rupees One crore and Sixty Six Lakhs only) was provided to the First Party. Second Party hereby agrees that the aforesaid amount has been set off against the losses suffered to the company. It is hereby agreed between the Parties that loss in the business resulted in the lapse of aforesaid amount and Second Party hereby agrees that the

¶38

said amount shall never be claim by them in future, in any form, whatsoever.

¶39

e . Second Party hereby further agrees to grant permission to use the trademark "KASABLANKA", without any fees, to the First Party for a period of 36 month subject to the list of stock annexed herewith as Annexure B. The permission granted by the second party is strictly limited to stock as mentioned in Annexure B, only. The first party hereby declares that they shall not use the permission otherwise. The First Party shall not use the trademark “KASABLANKA” after selling the stock as mentioned in Annexure B.

¶40

f . That the first party has lodged the complaint against the second party in thana Kharora Dist Raipur (C.G.) which has been registered as FIR/Crime 204/19 under section 420 & 408 of IPC. In pursuance of the settlement agreement the first party has agreed to withdraw the said complaint filed against second party and shall do all necessary legal requirements including filing compromise application and statement before the competent court and all other necessary work etc.

¶41

2. Effects of Settlement

¶42

Except with respect to the obligations created by, acknowledged, or arising out of this Agreement, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in any prior communications between the parties, each party does hereby for itself and its respective legal predecessors, successors and assigns, and its affiliates, and each of their respective current and former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, and representatives:

¶43

a . Unconditionally release, covenant not to sue, and absolutely and forever discharge the First party, together with their respective legal predecessors, successors and assigns, and its affiliates, and each of their respective current and former officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, and representatives, from any and all claims existing or arising from acts, omissions or circumstances existing as of the Effective Date, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, whether at law or in equity, which Second Party

¶44

may have or claim to have against the First party or the other persons identified above in the past, now or at any time in the future based on such claims, including any and all claims for attorneys' fees and costs (all of which are hereinafter referred to as and included within the Released Matters); and

¶45

b . Unconditionally withdraw all notices, claims, demands and other correspondence issued by Second Party to First Party in connection with any Released Matters or otherwise in connection with First Party or it's interests or dealings therein.

¶46

c . It is the intention of the parties in executing this Agreement that this Agreement will be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and mutual general release of and from all Released Matters. The intention hereby is to fully, finally and forever settle and release all of the Released Matters, disputes and differences known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which now exist, may exist or heretofore have existed between the parties, except as otherwise expressly provided. In furtherance of this intention, the releases herein given will be and remain in effect as full and complete mutual releases notwithstanding the discovery or existence of any additional or different claim or unknown fact, except stated herein.

¶47

9. Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of BS Joshi and others Vs State

¶48

of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as under:-

¶49

"If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. it is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

¶50

Thus, the High Court on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

¶51

10. Further, in the matter of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another

¶52

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Honble Supreme court has held:-

¶53

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc, cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the 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. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and

¶54

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. In other words, 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 victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

¶55

11. Further, in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs State of

¶56

Punjab reported in (2014) 6, SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme court has held that:

¶57

"29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶58

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."

¶59

12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the compromise arrived at between the parties and execution of settlement deed in between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR of Crime No. 204/2019 registered at Police Station Kharora, DistRaipur for the offence under Sections 420 and 408 of IPC and consequently the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 12179/2019 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, with

¶60

respect to the petitioners Girish Purohit and Harish Purohit are

¶61

hereby quashed.

¶62

13. The instant Cr.M.P. is allowed .

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶65

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice