Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR dated 10-05-2023 registered at Police Station — Economic Offences Wing, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 30-09-2024. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the FIR could be quashed if it was found that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only burden the judiciary with a matter that the parties had willingly resolved among themselves.
The factual background reveals that the FIR arose from a complaint registered by Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd., which operates under the brand “BharatPe.” The complaint alleged financial misconduct and irregularities by the petitioners, who were former senior executives of the company. Specifically, the allegations pertained to fraudulent transactions involving input tax credit, mismanagement of vendor payments, and unauthorized payments, which purportedly led to financial losses for the company. Additionally, several civil litigations were ongoing between the parties, further underscoring the extent of their disputes.
During the hearing, senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR and its consequential proceedings should be quashed given the comprehensive settlement reached between the parties, which had resulted in the withdrawal of all related civil proceedings. Counsel for the respondent company affirmed that all disputes had been amicably resolved and no criminal pursuit was desired by the company. The petitioners and the respondent company jointly requested the court to honor the settlement by quashing the FIR and relieving both parties from further legal entanglement.
However, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State opposed the petition, referencing prior status reports which indicated pending matters concerning Goods and Services Tax (GST) payments and income tax investigations. The prosecutor argued that the allegations of fraud and embezzlement involved multiple entities and vendors, some potentially fictitious, and that the tax authorities were still investigating these financial claims. He underscored that the EOW had expended significant time on the case and contended that, if the court chose to quash the FIR, it should impose costs on the petitioners.
The Court considered the legal standards under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing FIRs considering settlements. It acknowledged that while FIRs for compoundable offences may be quashed upon compromise, charges under certain non-compoundable offences, such as Section 467 warrant careful judicial scrutiny. The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 528 must be used sparingly, with due consideration for potential abuses of judicial process and public interest.
Thus, the Court held that although the settlement between the petitioners and Resilient Innovations was valid and comprehensive, the public interest and gravity of the allegations necessitated caution. Recognizing that judicial resources and investigative time had already been expended, the Court agreed to quash the FIR but imposed a monetary penalty on the petitioners as a condition for dismissal.
[Madhuri Jain Grover v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7849, decided on 11-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, Mr Giriraj Subramanium, Mr Akhilesh Talluri, Ms. Veda Singh, Mr. Ravi Pathak, Mr Joy Banerjee, Mr Parmod Sharma, Ms Reea Mehta, Mr Siddhant Juyal, Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Ms Aditi Tuteja, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State. Mr. Swapnil Shrivastava, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC, Mr. Devvrat Yadav, GP and Ms. Ishika Soni, Advocates for respondents
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
