Sections 406, 468, 120­B IPC.= 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.= we allow the parties to compound the offences , even though the 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.


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.