Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 of 2019
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2986 of 2015]
Srinivasan Iyenger and Anr. .. Appellants
Versus
Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. .. Respondents
(WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) No.
2990 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted in both the appeals.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these
appeals and, as such, these appeals arise out of the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court, both
these appeals are being decided and disposed of together by this
common judgment.
2
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the High Court
of Gauhati in Criminal Petition No. 634 of 2014, by which the
High Court has rejected the said application preferred by the
Appellants herein to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against them by Respondent No. 1 herein – the original
Complainant, the original Accused – original Applicants have
preferred the present appeals.
3. That a private complaint came to be filed by the original
Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) through her husband
(Respondent No. 2 herein and power of attorney holder of
Respondent No. 1) before the Court of learned CJM at Tinsukia,
Assam against the Appellants herein and another for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 468, 120B IPC. At this stage, it
is required to be noted that Respondent No. 4 – company can be
said to be a broker agent of the Reliance Life Insurance Company
and the relationship between them is governed by the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority (Insurance Brokers)
Regulations, 2002. That the original Complainant filed a
3
complaint against in all 12 persons. That the said complaint was
registered as C.R. Case No. 42C of 2014.
4. It was the case of the original Complainant that she was the
holder of an insurance policy issued by the ICICI Life Prudential
in the month of August, 2013.
4.1 It was alleged that the complainant received a call from one
Sri Navin Mittal, who identified himself as an Executive Officer of
Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.
4.2 It was further alleged that the said caller informed the
complainant over phone that as per the instruction of the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short
“IRDA”), “the fund related to Life Insurance Policy of the
complainant with the ICICI Life Prudential has been released
through the Reliance Life Insurance and also informed that
bonus amount of Rs.19,245/, Rs.1,94,730/ and Rs.96,500/
against the said life insurance policy is ready to be disbursed in
favour of the complainant by the Reliance Life Insurance
Company Ltd. (Accused no. 1 in C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014)
4
4.3 It was further alleged that the said caller had further
requested the complainant to send a cheque for Rs.50,000/
drawn in favour of the Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Pan
Card and identity cards of the family members of complainant for
verification. The caller also informed the complainant that after
necessary verification, the amount in the said cheque together
with bonus amount would be released in favour of the
complainant.
4.4 It was further alleged that believing such statements to be
true, the complainant sent a cheque of Rs.50,000/ to Accused
no. 1 along with copies of other documents, sought for. The said
cheque of Rs.50,000/ was received by Accused No. 1 in due
course. Thereafter, in the month of November 2013, the
complainant received another call from phone No. 09210657675.
This time, the callers were Smt. Meenakshi Rawat and Sri
Deepak Kapoor.
4.5 It was further alleged that these callers introduced
themselves to be the Executive Officers of Accused no. 1. The
second caller also narrated the facts which were already narrated
to the complainant by the first caller. The second caller also
5
requested the complainant to send one more cheque of
Rs.42,000/ drawn in favour of Accused no. 1.
4.6 It was further alleged that they also informed the
complainant that if the said cheque for Rs.42,000/ was not sent
by the complainant, the bonus amount could not be released.
They, however, assured the complainant that the amounts so
paid through cheque in favour of Accused No. 1 would be
refunded to the complainant immediately after the verification of
her identity. Being so influenced, the complainant through her
attorney issued another cheque of Rs.42,000/ in favour of
Accused No. 1.
4.7 It was further alleged that after a few days of issuance of the
said two cheques, the complainant received two life insurance
policies in the month of December 2013 issued by Accused no. 1,
duly signed by the Accused nos. 2 and 3 through its branch office
at Guwhati and, in both the policies, the policy holder has been
shown as complainant herself, but in one policy, the life of
complainant has been shown as assured, but in another policy
the life of complainant’s son Sri Samir Bajaj has been shown as
assured and the client ID of policy holder has been numbered as
6
86605617, Contract No. 51168554 dated 10.10.2013 and Client
ID No. 86948411, Contract No. 51321645 dated 28.11.2013 and
the amount of Rs.49,999.68 and Rs.41,999.89 has been shown
as first premium receipt against the said two policies and the
said amount has been collected through the bank account of
complainant by using the aforesaid two cheques by Accused no.
1.
4.8 It was then further alleged that in both the policies, Accused
no. 4 has been named as broker/agent of Accused no. 1 through
which the aforesaid two policies have been issued in the name of
the complainant and in one policy bearing contract No.
51168554, the medical report of complainant has been shown to
be enclosed therein which has been issued by the Accused no. 11
Sales Manager of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.
4.9 It was then further alleged that, on receipt of the said two
policies, on being surprised, the complainant through her
husband made contact with the office staff of Accused no. 1 in
Tinsukia branch office and also called over the phone numbers
from which the complainant received the calls in the month of
August 2013 and November 2013 and enquired about the matter,
7
but the caller misguided the complainant by saying that the said
policies have been issued due to some mistake and also
requested the complainant to bear with them for sometime as
they are working over the matter and assured the complainant
that she will get her amount back within a very short span of
time.
4.10 It was further alleged that, finding no other alternative, the
complainant waited for sometime and made contact with these
callers and asked them about her money but all the time the
callers assured that the work is in progress and since the matter
has been referred to their high officials for their sanction, so it
will take some time. The complainant all the time with a hope
that the company of such a reputation will definitely return her
money, waited for the same.
4.11 It was further alleged that, subsequently, on careful perusal
of the policies, the complainant surprisingly noticed that neither
she nor her husband nor her son ever signed any proposal form
or any other documents which were required at the time of taking
the life insurance policies, as per the rules and regulations of
IRDA, nor even appeared for any medical examination before any
8
doctor or hospital authority, but the policies were issued in the
name of the complainant, moreover the booklet of policy
containing the First Premium Receipt, policy schedule, proposal
form, medical report are all Xerox copy and all the documents,
even the First Premium Receipt and policy schedule do not bear
any original signature of signatory i.e. Accused nos. 2 and 3 –
Appellants herein.
4.12 It was further alleged that, the proposal forms were shown
to be signed by the complainant, but the complainant never
signed over the said policies and it is abundantly clear that her
signatures are forged for the wrongful gain by the accused
persons. It has been further revealed that the accused persons
in conspiracy with each other forged the signatures of the
complainant, her husband and her son Sri Samir Bajaj with an
intention to deceive them for the wrongful gain. The said policies
were issued through Accused no. 4 and all the accused persons
are related to each other and interested persons who are getting
monetary benefits for the issuance of these life insurance policies
and all the accused persons are involved in committing the crime
of cheating, forgery, criminal misappropriation of money and
9
criminal conspiracy. It is crystal clear that at the very inception
of conversation with the complainant through her husband, the
accused persons have been in conspiracy with each other and
induced the complainant to deliver the cheques with an intention
to deceive the complainant for the wrongful gain.
5. That, thereafter, the Appellants herein – original Accused
nos. 1 to 3 approached the High Court by way of Criminal
Petition No. 634 of 2014 praying for quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 482
CrPC. That by impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2015,
the High Court has dismissed the same and has refused to quash
the criminal proceedings. Hence, the original Accused nos. 1 to 3
have preferred the present appeals.
6. At the time of issuance of notice on 17.04.2015, this Court
directed the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,75,000/ to be
utilized, if necessary, for awarding costs to the Respondents
complainant. It is reported that the Appellants have deposited
the same with the Registry.
10
7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the
parties at length.
8. During the hearing of these appeals, the learned counsel for
the Appellants agreed to pay to the original Complainant a total
sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten lakh only) towards the full and
final settlement of the claim of the original Complainant and it is
agreed that, on such payment, the claimant will not proceed with
the complaint any further and that the parties may be permitted
to compound the offences.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
Complainant has stated that the original Complainant is
agreeable to accept a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/ offered and
that, on such payment, the complainant has no objection if the
offences against the Appellants are compounded and the criminal
proceedings initiated against them are quashed.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
Complainant has submitted that the Appellants may deposit a
total sum of Rs.10,00,000/ in the bank account of the original
Complainant, the particulars of which are already on record, and
11
on doing so, the Appellants may be permitted to withdraw the
amount of Rs.3,75,000/ plus interest if any, already deposited
by them.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and that now the parties have settled the
dispute amicably and that the dispute between the parties seems
to be having predominant element of a civil dispute and the
origin is predominantly or overwhelming a civil dispute, we are of
the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of
justice.
12. We are of the opinion that on payment of total sum of
Rs.10,00,000/ by the Appellants to the original Complainant, as
agreed between the parties, the criminal proceedings be quashed,
considering the decisions of this Court in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
allow the parties to compound the offences, even though the
12
offences alleged are noncompoundable, as the dispute between
the parties predominantly or overwhelming seems to be of a civil
nature and that the dispute is a private one and between the two
private parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that on payment of a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/ by the Appellants to the original
Complainant to be deposited in the bank account of the original
Complainant within a period of two weeks, the criminal
proceedings being C.R. Case No. 40C of 2014 pending in the
Court of learned CJM, Tinsukia, stand quashed. On furnishing
proof of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/, the Registry to return the
amount of Rs.3,75,000/ along with interest, if any, to the
Appellants herein, which the Appellants have deposited pursuant
to the earlier order of this Court.
14. The present appeals stand disposed of accordingly in terms
of the above.
……………………………………J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
……………………………………J.
(M. R SHAH)
New Delhi;
February 15, 2019.
