- (1.) Quashing of FIR No. 585 dated 7.10.2010 registered under Sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat and the proceedings consequential thereto are being sought on the basis of compromise/settlement deed dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure P-2). The impugned FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 M/s Sheena Exports. This firm is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Sheena Exports at Panipat. The complainants are engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of home furnishings. The Standard Chartered claimed to be one of the leading foreign bank in India and is currently operating from its Head Office situated at Mumbai. The accused are engaged in providing service relating to transactions in foreign exchange in terms of applicable law on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India as authorized dealer. They are regulated by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The dispute arose between the accused and the complainant on account of foreign derivative transactions. There are conditions in the Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts) Regulations, 2000 that no person resident in India may enter into a foreign exchange derivative contract except to "hedge" an exposure to risk in respect of a transaction permissible under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The comprehensive guidelines on Derivatives issued by RBI also permit derivative transaction only between a bank and a business entity when such transaction are to hedge or reduce risk exposure of the business entity. The RBI has strongly discouraged and depreciated the sale by banks of exotic foreign exchange derivative transaction and the RBI has directed the banks that it should sell only plain vanilla rupee-dollar products and that too only for hedging foreign currency exposures, not for trading. In the year 2005, the Standard Chartered Bank through Mr. Manish Singla approached the complainants and asked the complainants to enter into forward contracts with the treasury of Standard Chartered Bank. For this purpose, Mr. Manish Singla, during the course of introducing the above subject asked the complainants to sign several templates documents which were stated to be necessary and customary in these kind of dealings for evaluating customer eligibility. Believing the representations and expressions of assurances and promises given by Mr. Manish Singla, Mr. Vikash Goenka, Mr. Neeraj Swarup, Mr. Manish Dhamija, Ms. Megha Chopra, Ms. Megha Jain and other officers of Standard Chartered Bank, the complainants accordingly agreed to be considered in participate in such business activities and signed every requisite documents which the complainants legitimately believed were required for the purpose of evaluating their eligibility aforesaid. The said officers of the Standard Chartered Bank, without explaining to the complainants of the manner of operation of the derivatives marked, the nature of risks involved, the nature of security in question, and without explaining the effect of the transaction led the complainants to believe that they would become eligible to enter into future contract/instruments which would result in huge profits and incomes to the complainants. The complainants never approached the Bank or its officers to hedge their foreign exchange receivables against any export transaction. In the case of the complainants' partnership concern, the cap would be an average foreign exchange turnover of three financial years ending 31st March 2007, which was approximately between Rs. 60 to Rs. 75 crores. As per the complainant party, the Standard Chartered Bank claimed that on 22.4.2008 against Reference No. 476654, the Standard Chartered Bank claimed to have credited the complainant's account in a sum of Rs. 41,250/- being the difference in the sale and purchase price of 7.5 million USD which were alleged to have been sold by the complainants on 17.4.2008 and purchased by the complainants on 21.4.2008. Indeed sale and purchase of currency, is done by the RBI through the agency of the Standard Chartered Bank as its authorized dealer. Contrary to regulatory mechanism and legal provisions, the Standard Chartered Bank created a fictitious sale of 7.5 million USD in relation of the reference number referred to above on 17.4.2008 and similarly created another fictitious purchase of an equivalent amount on 21.4.2008 without support of any underlying commercial transactions. In this background, the impugned FIR was registered.
(2.) At the stage of investigation, the parties have entered into a compromise/settlement deed, which is evident from Annexure P-2.
(3.) The original compromise filed in the Court is taken on record as Annexure A-1.;