Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved with the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under Section 120B/406/420 of I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1095 of 2014 pending before the learned C.M.M. Calcutta, the petitioner has filed this revisional application with a prayer for quashing of the said proceeding on the grounds stated below.
(2.) According to the petitioner they have been arraigned as an accused by invoking the concept of vicarious liability which is alien to the criminal jurisprudence prevailing in our country.
(3.) The petitioner's case in a capsulated form is such that originally one Mohan Lal Patwari was the owner of the business. He had five sons namely Ishwarlal, Bharat Lal, Ramji, Ram Gopal and Bishwamber Lal. The present petitioner is the son of Ishwarlal and the complainant/respondent is the son of Bharat Lal. In 1989, there was a separation between the family members of Mohan Lal Patwari and the assets of Patwari family were divided amongst four sons of Mohan Lal Patwari. Be it mentioned, that the property of Bishwamber Lal Patwari was separated long back in 1977/1978. The family disputes of Ishwarlal and Ram Gopal was the subject matter of several civil and criminal litigations and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, retired Judge of Supreme Court of India, as a mediator. The said Bharat Lal Patwari also was approached i.e. father of the complainant. After a long persuasion by the Hon'ble Judge of Apex Court, memorandum of understanding was prepared amongst the representatives' of Ishwarlal Patwari, Bharat Lal Patwari, Ram Gopal Patwari. It was unanimously and exclusively settled that the shares in Sterlite group would be given to Mumbai branch by the Hyderabad and Chennai Branch and the rights of Hyderabad branch over the property situated Hyderabad and shares of Telegana Weaving and Spinning mills held by Mumbai and Chennai Branch be given to Hyderabad Branch without any reservations. The said memorandum of understanding would unerringly demonstrate that it was categorically decided by and between the parties that they do not have any claim and/or further claim in respect of the issues settled therein and each of the parties to the said mediation proceeding will be debarred from raising any claim regarding the issues settled therein in future. After a prolonged conciliation, the said mediation proceeding achieved its' success and the Hon'ble Mediator Justice M. Jagannadha Rao vide his report dated 7th August, 2010 submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the transfer of shares of Sterlite group held by Bharat Lal Patwari (complainant's father) and Ram Gopal Patwari and their respective family members to be given in favour of Ishwarlal Patwari. It is pertinent to note that the said mediation proceeding was initiated at the behest of the Hon'ble Apex Court. After getting the said report Hon'ble Apex Court put a seal of approval in the said mediation report. But at the time of filing the F.I.R., the complainant surreptitiously omitted to mention the same, and this indicates the malicious intention of the complainant opposite party. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13th August, 2010, accepted the report of the mediator and was pleased to opine that all the disputes between the parties have been settled and as such the criminal proceeding pending between the parties at that point of time stands quashed. Subsequently, another memorandum of understanding dated 25th July, 2010 entered into by and between the parties and this was practically a supplemental memorandum of understanding between the family of Ishwarlal Patwari (present petitioner's father) and Bharat Lal Patwari (father of the complainant opposite party). In the supplemental memorandum of understanding there was also a waiver clause debarring either side of the parties to raise any claim in future. In terms of the said mediation the present complainant's father i.e. Bharat Lal Patwari received shares of Sterlite Technology Ltd. valued approximately Rs. 4 crores at the relevant point of time and they have also received title over the property situated at Chennai which is approximately valued at Rs. 50 crores. The sister of complainant also received shares worth Rs. 1.5 crores. The complaint has been filed regarding distribution of shares, split shares, bonus shares and unpaid dividend accrued till the point of time when the settlement was arrived at by two memorandum of understandings dated 25th July, 2010 and 16th December, 2010. In the said mediation proceeding the branches of Bharat Lal Patwari since deceased was duly represented and they had informed the Hon'ble mediator that all the disputes by and between the family of Ishwarlal Patwari and Bharat Lal Patwari had been dissolved. It is also alleged by the present petitioner that Patwari Export Pvt. Ltd. was promoted by Ishwarlal Patwari and Bharat Lal Patwari as their family business. The complainant was the director of said Patwari Exports Pvt. Ltd. and was at the helm of affairs. The management of the said company had taken a decision that the buy-back proceeds of the shares of Sterlite Industries (India) held by family of Late Mohan Lal Patwari would be invested in Patwari Exports Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to such family agreement the share warrants were sent by Sterlite group to both the addresses i.e. at Chennai address of the complainant as well as to the address, care of Indian Overseas Corporation. Thereafter the complainant had initiated a writ petition against the said company and others over the self-same disputes. The said writ petition was filed suppressing the material facts and by way of making some distorted and twisted description. However, after getting the F.I.R. the Investigating Officer has made a stereotyped investigation, which is perfunctory in nature, and submitted charge-sheet. The complainant in his F.I.R. mentioned that the present petitioner cheated him during the last 15 years and he wanted to get some documents but he could not disclose the factual aspects as mentioned above. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that there is no deception at the very inception. He mostly relied on the memorandum of understanding entered into by and between them including their predecessor who were there in the said mediation proceeding. The said mediation proceeding has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court and accordingly the F.I.R. should be quashed.;