Sudhir Gupta vs State of Punjab and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—Quashing of F.I.R No. 34 dated 04.06.2003 u/s 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC 13(1) read with 13(2),88 P.C Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ludhiana is being sought, on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 29.04.2011 (P-3). The petitioner was a director of M/s Harshill Wires Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2000, the petitioner approached respondent No. 2-PFC for taking loan for setting up a factory of wire drawing against the property of the company. Accordingly, the property of the company was mortgaged and first installment Rs. 26,59,500/-was issued. However, the petitioner was unable to pay back the loan to respondent No. 2 which resulted in multiplication of the liability towards respondent No. 2. The loan amount arises to Rs. 55,00,000/-as on 29.04.2011. In the above background, F.I.R was registered against the petitioner and performa respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (P-1).

In the year 2009, respondent No. 2 floated a One time Settlement Scheme (for short ''OTS scheme'') for settling the unpaid loans taken by any or all the entities all over Punjab. The petitioner thereafter approached respondent N. 2 for settlement of his account and paid an amount of Rs. 9,78,000/-under the OTS Scheme. The cheque drawn in favour of respondent No. 2 dated 14.02.2011 is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, a settlement plan was worked out and under the OTS Scheme, the petitioner would have to pay Rs. 65,00,000/-as full and final settlement against the loan taken by the petitioner. Copy of the settlement is Annexure P-3. In pursuance of the settlement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the petitioner has made a further payment of Rs. 10,78,066/- (P-4).

On notice, a reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 on 06.12.2011 in Crl. Misc No. M-15883 of 2011 (petition of the co-accused). They have stated that the company deposited Rs. 9.78 lacs towards settlement under the OTS Scheme on 15.12.2011 and respondent No. 2 has approved settlement in the settlement committee held on 20.04.2011 at an amount of Rs. 51,08,256/-with further interest from 20.04.2011 in loan account-I and Rs. 17,45,297/-with further interest from 20.04.2011 in loan account-II plus further expenses. It was admitted that the petitioner has paid Rs. 10,78,066/-towards the part payment under the OTS Scheme. As per the records of the Corporation, the entire amount has been settled, as per the decision of the settlement committee held on 20.04.2011 and stands paid.

After going through the reply filed by respondent No. 2, it seems that the claim has been settled under the OTS Scheme and now nothing survives for continuation of proceedings against the petitioner. As per law laid down by State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another, 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 793. The law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings is summed up as follows:-

F. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Law summoned up:-

(1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2)In a case where there is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may establish the charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

(3)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

(4)Criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves.

(5)High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. In fact it was observed.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, F.I.R No. 34 dated 04.06.2003 u/s 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC 13(1) read with 13(2),88 P.C Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ludhiana is quashed.