Case: SRINIVASAN IYENGAR  Vs. BIMLA DEVI AGARWAL

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, 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 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 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.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 whichare already on record, and 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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.