Mahak Chaturvedi & Ors. vs The State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & Anr.

3.

The Accused shall pay to the Complainant (Ms.Nandini Roy) a total sum of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh fifteen Thousand Only) in 2 equal instalments towards refund, compensation, damages and full and final settlement of the monetary claims/disputes Roysed by the Complainant in relation to the subject matter of the FIR.

4.

A sum of Rs.57,500/- (Rupees Fifty-seven Thousand Only) shall be paid by the Accused or accused company to the Complainant at the time of execution/signing of this MOU by the way of demand draft in the name of Ms.Nandini Roy. The remaining sum of Rs.57,500/- (Rupees Fifty-seven Thousand Only) shall be paid by the Accused or accused company to the Complainant after no objection of complainant through counsel in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and at the time of statements of both parties i.e. complainant and accused in court the remaining amount Rs.57,500/- will be paid to complainant for the quashing of above mentioned FIR, as required by the Hon'ble Court.

5.

The Accused/ accused company shall take all necessary steps and make the necessary payment/arrangements for full and final settlement and closure of the loan account pertaining to the Complainant, presently stated to be approximately Rs.54,499/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Nine Only) along with any interest if pending before finance company.

6.

The Accused shall ensure that the said loan is settled/closed without any further financial liability upon the Complainant, subject to the terms and procedures of the concerned lender/financial institution. Upon closure/settlement of the loan, the Accused shall provide/ensure that the Complainant receives the relevant No Objection Certificate (NOC)/Loan Closure Certificate, as applicable.

7.

The Complainant agrees to appear before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, either personally, through counsel or through such mode as may be permitted by the Hon'ble Court, in the proceedings/petition seeking quashing of above-mentioned FIR, and consequential proceedings arising therefrom and the complainant is bound to visit in-person with counsel before the Trial court for recording of statements of both parties for the quashing of above-mentioned FIR.

8.

The Complainant agrees to state before the Hon'ble High Court that the dispute between the Parties has been amicably and voluntarily settled. The Complainant shall give her consent/no objection to the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, subject to the terms of this MOU and receipt of the agreed settlement amount in accordance.

9.

That upon receipt by the Complainant of the entire sum of Rs.1,15,000/-, completion/closure of the loan settlement/interest as agreed herein, the Complainant shall have no further monetary claim or demand against the Accused or accused company/institute arising out of the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR/complaint, subject to complete performance of the obligations contained in this MOU, the Complainant agrees that she shall not initiate or pursue any further complaint, claim, proceeding or litigation against the Accused concerning the same/Objection/subject matter, except where required by law or for enforcement of this MOU.

“58.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied)

“29.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: ***

29.2.

When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. ***

29.4.

On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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.

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.” (emphasis supplied)

“19.

This Court found that though the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC was compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320 CrPC with the leave of the Court, the offence of forgery was not included as one of the compoundable offences. However, the Court found that in such cases the principle enunciated in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] should be applied.

20.

This Court specifically noted that though it is alleged that certain documents had been created by the appellant therein to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled, the power of quashing could be exercised. This Court found that in view of a compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings. This Court found that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility.” (emphasis supplied)