INDIA HOUSEHOLD & HEALTH CARE LTD. v. STATE & ORS.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.69/2010 PS EOW registered under Section 409/420/468/467/406/471/120-B IPG. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two FIRs cannot be lodged for a single offence, as an earlier FIR lodged, was quashed by High Court in CrI.M.C.No.1270/2008.

2. Counsel for the State submits that after the earlier FIR No.366/2006 was quashed an application was filed by the present complainant bringing to the notice of the court that he has not settled the matter with the petitioner herein.

3. After hearing counsel for the applicant, the court had clarified that while quashing the FIR No.366/2006 the court had neither dealt with nor commented upon the applicant's complaint and thus a second FIR has been lodged based on the same complaint, which was lodged in the year 2005 and only a separate number has been given for the sake of convenience.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties. The proposition sought to be urged by counsel for the petitioner based on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported at (2001) 6 SCC 181 is not in dispute. It 2013:DHC:7545 may be noticed that based on a compromise FIR No.366/2006 was quashed by this court. Subsequently, the complainant Mr.Abhishek Chopra filed an application before the same court pointing out to the court that he had not settled the matter with the accused. The following order was passed by the same court on 29.8.2008 which reads as under: "1. The present petition had been filed by M/s Indian Household & Health Care Ltd. for quashing of FIR No. r., 366/2006 registered with PS Kalkaji on the ground that the ) Petitioner had amicably settled its dispute with Respondent NO. 2. On that basis, this Court on 24"" April, 2008 had passed the following order:- "Present: Mr. H. Hariharan Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for R-2 +Crl. M.C. No. 1270/2008 * The present petitioner has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking of quashing of FIR No 366/2006 registered at P.S. Kalkaji under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, 468 and 471 of IPC. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to a license agreement with LG Household and Health Care Limited, Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a distributor. However, M/s. LG Household and Health Care Limited unilaterally terminated the said license agreement. Consequently, petitioner could not honour Its contractual obligations, due to which the business interest of respondent No. 2 suffered. Subsequently, an FIR No. 366/2006 was registered at P.S. Kalkaji on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2. However, now the parties have amicably settled their disputes. Respondent No. 2 is represented by its proprietor, Mr. J.N. Sharma, who has been identified by respondent No. 2's counsel in Court. He has no objection to quashing of the impugned FIR. Since the disputes are of civil nature and they have been settled between the parties, I quash the aforesaid FIR NO. 366/2006 registered at P.S. Kalkaji and any consequential WP(CrL) 1035/2013 f - / f )€> proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that LOG notice, if any, issued against the petitioner in respect of present FIR be also quashed. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no objection to the same. Since the FIR has already been quashed, I see no difficulty in quashing LOG notices, if any, issued against the petitioner by Delhi Police in pursuance to the impugned FIR. Ordered accordingly. The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. Dasti."

3. Subsequently, the present application has been filed by Mr. Abhishek Chopra, Proprietor of R.D. Traders, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, alleging that its complaint had been tagged with FIR No. 366/2006 and Respondent No. 1 is treating the Applicant's complaint as also being quashed by the order dated 24*^^ April, 2008.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that they had compromised the matter in its entirety with its Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C&F Agent) and it was the C&F Agent's responsibility to settle all the disputes with all the distributors including the present Applicant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that in fact the C&F Agent had settled disputes with five other distributors but surprisingly not with the Applicant.

5. Be that as it may, it is clarified that this Court while quashing the FIR No.366/2006 has neither dealt with nor commented upon the Applicant's complaint. Consequently, this Court's order dated 24"" April, 2008 should not be construed by the police as closure of the Applicant's complaint. What has been quashed by this Court was an FIR registered at the instance of M/s. P.S.V. Enterprises. Respondent No. 1/police is free to take any action in accordance with law on the Applicant's complaint.

6. If the Applicant has any grievance with the police investigation, then he is at liberty to agitate the same in accordance with lav\/. Similarly, the Petitioner is at liberty to seek either quashing or any other remedy with regard to Applicant's complaint that is available to him in accordance with law. WP(Crl.) 1035/2013

7. With these observations, the present application is disposed of."

5. Upon reading of the aforesaid order it is clear that the court had observed that quashing of FIR No.366/2006 should not be construed by the Police as closure of the applicant's complaint. The Court further clarified that what was quashed was the FIR registered at the instance of M/s. P.S.V. Enterprises and the police was free to take any action in accordance with law on the applicant's complaint.

6. In this background of the matter there is force in the submission made by Mr.Mahajan that new number has been given for the sake of convenience and no fresh complaint of the complainant has been entertained. Accordingly, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.

7. As prayed, it is clarified that in case the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR on merits, he is free to do so in accordance with law and any opinion expressed in the instant order would have no bearing on the quashing of the FIR on merits. G.S.SISTANI, DECEMBER 03, 2013 dk