IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49043 of 2008 M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. (NOW NAMED AS HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED) A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGIST -ERED OFFICE AT 165/166, C/O BROOKE HOUSE,9 SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA, THROUGH REGIONAL LEGAL MANAGER ALOK MISHRA AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. --------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, SON OF SRI POONAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF SINGLE & Co.,607,ASHIANA PLAZA, BUDH MARG, PATNA-800001 ----------------------- OPP.PARTIES ----------- For the petitioner : M/S N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, and D.N.Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate --------------- O R D E R 2 18.12.2008 The petitioner M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd.( now named as Hindustan Unilever Ltd.) a Company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act ( hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) who along with its Directors and other Managerial cadre officials has been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case no.853(C) of 2007 has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding emanating therefrom including the orders dated 16.4.2007 and 17.11.2007, passed therein by Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna , whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 406,420,120B I.P.C. and has issued non-bailable warrants. One Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia - 2 - stating that he is a share broker and a registered member of the Magadh Stock Exchange Association and as such is doing business in dealing in securities market for investors and himself. He claimed that he purchased 150 shares of the Company from another registered broker Laxmi Investment at Magadh Stock Exchange and got the delivery after paying the full consideration money to the said broker and as a broker he again sold the said share in the market. It is said that out of the 150 shares 100 shares were transferred in the name of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and 50 shares became bad delivery which later on were transferred in the name of the complainant. It is alleged that the share holder of 150 shares filed a case in Kolkata which was eventually compromised between the parties and as per the agreement dated 2/5 Feb.2000 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4, 15,000/- to the share holder. Since the Company was not transferring the shares the complainant served legal notice and in response thereto the Company by letter dated 8.12.2000 delivered 500 shares of Rs.1/- each instead of 50 shares of Rs.10/-paid in the name of the complainant and further intimated that for the remaining 100 shares duly registered in the name of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority a transfer deed duly signed by him was required to be submitted to facilitate the transfer of the 1000 shares of Rs.1/- in his favour. It is alleged that notwithstanding the submission of the requisite papers neither were the shares transferred in his favour nor were the dividends paid and reminders sent evinced no response. It appears that during the pendency of the case before the - 3 - learned Magistrate, the complainant in course of discussions with the Company officials realized that none of the accused officials of the Company had even dishonestly misappropriated the complainant’s property nor was there any criminal conspiracy to cheat him and accordingly, a compromise petition duly signed by the parties was filed in court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the complainant has settled all his differences and grievances with the Company and had also entered into a compromise no gainful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the litigation. The Opp.Party no.2 has appeared before me and has reiterated his stand of amicably having settled all his differences and grievances and a counter affidavit in that regard has been filed. The law in respect of compromise is by now well settled by the decision in Madan Mohan Abbat Vrs. State of Punjab , reported in ( 2008) 4 SCC 582 wherein their Lordships have observed as follows:- “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” - 4 - Due regard being had to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their differences out of court and have filed a compromise petition in the court below which fact stands reiterated by a counter-affidavit filed in this Court by the complainant , the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-