Delhi High Court
Arun Nanda vs State & Anr. on 24 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:24.12.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 6436/2019, CRL.M.A. 42616/2019 & CRL.M.A.
42618/2019
MARIO ANTHONY NAZARETH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
+ CRL.M.C. 6459/2019, CRL.M.A. 42679/2019 & CRL.M.A.
42681/2019
ARUN NANDA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Shaurya Singh,
Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Arvind Kumar Ray,
Mr. Kabir Chhilwar & Ms. Anushka Bagla,
Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State
SI Mandeep, PS- Saket
CORAM
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 1 of 10
17:23:03
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions are filed essentially seeking quashing of
FIR No. 176/2019 dated 24.04.2019, registered at Police Station
Saket, for offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), including all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16.04.2019
(hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ACMM’), South District, Saket Court,
Delhi, in Case No. 9386/2018, whereby the investigating authorities
were directed to register an FIR against the petitioners.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. Respondent No.2 had filed a Civil Suit, bearing, CS No.
534/2018 (hereafter ‘the civil suit’), against the petitioners and others,
inter alia, seeking grant of decree of declaration that the act of
petitioners in reconstituting the Board of Trustees of Public Health
Technologies Trust (‘PHTT’) is illegal and void. It was alleged in the
suit that the petitioner Arun had manipulated the complainant into
paying the loan of PHTT to RBL Bank, and consequently, discharging
his personal liability. During the proceedings, the petitioners gave
certain documents in their respective written statements. The said
documents are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 2 of 10
17:23:03
– Board Resolution dated 07.03.2018, noting that Respondent
No.2 has ceased to be a trustee of PHTT. The same was signed
by the petitioner Mario;
– Board Resolution dated 07.03.2018 whereby it was resolved
that the petitioner, Mr. N Ramachandran and Dr Subhash
Salunke would be authorised to operate the account of PHTT
with HDFC Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The same
was signed by the petitioner Mario;
– Letters dated 08.03.2018, informing Indusind Bank, Vasant
Kunj and HDFC Bank, Green Park Extension about the change
of trustees of PHTT and a consequent change in authorised
signatories. The letters were signed by the petitioner Mario;
– Board Resolution dated 03.04.2018 resolving that MM Sardana
and Neeraj Bansal are appointed as trustees of PHTT. The same
was signed by the petitioner Mario;
– Board Resolution dated 16.04.2018, appointing the petitioner
Mario as the Authorised Representative of PHTT for the subject
suit. The same was signed by the petitioner Mario.
3.2. Upon receipt of the written statements, Respondent No.2 filed a
complaint against the petitioners with the Economic Offences Wing,
however, no action was taken on the complaint.
3.3. Before the adjudication of the civil suit, the parties entered into
a settlement and a joint application was preferred where the parties
agreed to not institute any further proceedings in regard to the subjectSignature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 3 of 10
17:23:03
matter of the civil suit. By order dated 31.01.2019, the civil suit was
dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the settlement.
3.4. Before the parties had settled the dispute, the complainant had
preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the petitioners. Despite the
settlement between the parties, by way of impugned order, the learned
ACMM directed registration of FIR by noting that whether the
documents are forged or not is a matter of investigation.
3.5. Pursuant to the same, FIR No. 176/2019 was registered at
Police Station Saket, on 24.04.2019, for offences under Sections
420/468/471/34 of the IPC alleging that after the petitioners had been
inducted as trustees of PHTT, a loan was taken by PHTT for an
amount of ₹3.5 crores from RBL Bank, with an irrevocable personal
guarantee of the petitioner Arun. Subsequently, on the representation
of petitioner Arun, the complainant paid an amount of ₹79 lakhs to
discharge the loan. Thereafter, the petitioners started obstructing the
functioning of PHTT. It was alleged that the petitioners had filed
certain forged documents in the civil suit initiated by the complainant.
It was alleged that the said documents had been forged in collusion
with each other and the accused conspired to induce the complainant
into discharging the RBL Loan availed by PHTT.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Civil
Suit was decreed on the same set of allegations as levelled in the FIR.
He submitted that the allegations in relation to cheating are identical to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 4 of 10
17:23:03
the issues raised in the Civil Suit that the petitioners duped
Respondent No.2 into paying off the loan from RBL Bank.
5. He submitted that he resolution of the Civil Suit effectively
nullifies the basis for the criminal allegations as the primary
contention, that the complainant was wrongfully induced into repaying
the loan, has been addressed and resolved through mutual agreement.
6. He submitted that the Civil Suit as well as the application under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC were filed by the complainant as a counter
blast to the proceedings initiated by Public Health Foundation of India
(‘PHFI’) against the complainant for his illegal acts. He submitted
that PHFI had launched the ‘Swasthya Slate’ project and established
PHTT to manage it.
7. He submitted that insofar as the allegations of forgery are
concerned, the petitioner Arun had ceased to be a trustee by the time
the documents were issued and the petitioner Mario has not disputed
to having authored the same. He submitted that in such circumstances,
no case of forgery can be made out. He submitted that the complainant
had challenged the validity of the documents in the civil suit and no
such allegation of forgery had been made at that time.
8. He submitted that the complainant has not actively opposed the
present petition and he did not even pursue the application under
Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. He submitted that as per the Settlement
Agreement, the complainant voluntarily consented to settle all
disputes, including those raised in the FIR, and no useful purpose will
be served by the continuation of the FIR.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 5 of 10
17:23:03
9. He further submitted that the FIR, being, FIR No. 202/2018,
registered with Economic Offences Wing, at the instance of PHFI also
stands quashed by this Court by order dated 03.09.2019, in
W.P.(CRL) 1660/2019.
10. While an advocate initially entered appearance on behalf of the
complainant, no one has been appearing on his behalf since
26.02.2020. No reply was filed to the present petition either. This
Court had made clear on 21.02.2024 that if none appears for the
complainant, the matter would be proceeded ex parte.
11. On being pointedly asked, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State submitted that the complainant has also not
joined the investigation due to which the matter has not proceeded.
12. He submits, on instructions, that the documents were found to
be genuine.
ANALYSIS
13. At the outset, it is relevant to consider the scope of interference
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. While this Court needs to exercise
restraint in stifling prosecution, however, the inherent jurisdiction can
be exercised if it is found that the continuance of criminal proceedings
would be a clear abuse of process of law.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation
v. NEPC India Limited and Others : (2006) 6 SCC 736 has discussed
the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash
criminal proceedings. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 6 of 10
17:23:03
hereunder:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and
reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few–
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC
194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra
Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.
Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The
principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in
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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole,
but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a
detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse
of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is
found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd
and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or
scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the
legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual
foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 7 of 10
17:23:03
ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should
not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only
where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are
absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil
wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a
contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.
As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil
remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground
to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the present case, it is argued that the main issue of the
complainant being induced into paying the loan of PHTT to discharge
the personal guarantee of the petitioner Arun has already been
resolved. It is argued that the civil suit where the alleged forged
documents were adduced by the petitioners was also dismissed as
withdrawn.
16. The relevant portion of the settlement brought on record before
the learned Civil Judge is as under:
“In view of the aforementioned terms, the Plaintiffs agree to
withdraw the present suit against the parties to the present
settlement and to further withdraw any other legal proceedings,
whether civil or criminal, which may have been instituted by
them against parties to the present settlement in respect of any of
the disputes as mentioned in the present suit or arising therefrom.
The parties to the present settlement further agree not to institute
any further proceedings, whether civil or criminal, against each
other in the fixture with regard to the subject matter of the
present suit and the matters covered under this Application. The
Plaintiffs shall confirm in writing to the parties to the present
settlement that they have withdrawn all legal proceedings, whetherSignature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 8 of 10
17:23:03
civil or criminal, and the Plaintiffs shall also provide the details of
the legal proceedings withdrawn by them along with supporting
documents.”
17. It is pointed out that the FIR registered at the instance of the
petitioners was also quashed on the basis of the settlement between the
parties.
18. Evidently, the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC
was preferred by the complainant alleging that he had been duped into
clearing the RBL Loan. The said issue was also raised before the
learned Civil Court and was consequently resolved by way of
settlement between the parties.
19. Insofar as the allegations in relation to forgery are concerned, it
seems that the issue was in relation to the complainant being ousted as
a trustee and other individuals being appointed as authorised
signatories. It is not alleged that the complainant’s signatures were
forged on any of the concerned documents. It is also pertinent to note
that the concerned documents were found to be genuine.
20. The complainant has not opposed the present petition and it is
pointed out that he is also not joining investigation. The fact of
settlement has been noticed in the impugned order itself. It is stated
that the complainant has gone out of India.
21. The FIR was registered way back in the year 2019 and the
matter has not proceeded since then. In the opinion of this Court, by
virtue of the settlement between the parties, subjecting the petitioners
to a protracted proceedings, where the complainant himself does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 9 of 10
17:23:03
wish to pursue the matter, would be an abuse of the process of law.
Continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, FIR No. 176/2019 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
23. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
24. A copy of this order be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
DECEMBER 24, 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:28.12.2024 CRL.M.C. 6436/2019 & CRL.M.C. 6459/2019 Page 10 of 10
17:23:03