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.