Shaweta Mittal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the parties had arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was recorded and agreed upon before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The settlement addressed financial claims, dissolution of firms, and mutual withdrawal of complaints and FIRs. Specifically, Clause (e) of the settlement stipulated that in case any government liability, including GST, arises against either party or the partnership firms in the future, such liability would be shared equally between Sanjay Dua, Shaweta Mittal, and Satinder Singh. The Court found this settlement to be a basis for resolving the dispute. Consequently, the interim bail orders were made absolute, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the parties must adhere to the settlement terms, and any default would allow the complainant to seek cancellation of bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

These petitions sought anticipatory bail for petitioners Shaweta Mittal, Satender Singh @ Raju, and Amit Kumar in FIR No. 737 dated 23.09.2018, registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from a partnership disagreement between the petitioners and the complainant, Sanjay Dua. Initially, interim bail was granted. The Court referred the parties to mediation to resolve the dispute. A settlement was reached, but a subsequent request highlighted a flaw in Clause (E) concerning GST liability. The matter was again referred to mediation, resulting in a revised settlement dated 14.01.2019. This settlement addressed financial liabilities, dissolution of firms (M/s Sanjay Kanchan and Associates, M/s SRK Interiors), and mutual withdrawal of complaints and FIRs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement arrived at between the parties, particularly concerning the sharing of future government liabilities including GST, is binding and sufficient to quash the FIR and grant anticipatory bail? (Section 438 Cr.P.C. and principles of settlement). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that a comprehensive settlement had been reached, resolving all disputes, including financial and tax liabilities. They contended that the settlement, facilitated by the Court's mediation, demonstrated a genuine resolution and should lead to the quashing of the FIR and confirmation of anticipatory bail. They relied on the terms of the settlement agreement dated 14.01.2019. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State of Haryana or the complainant regarding the legal validity of the settlement or the GST liability. The proceedings focused on the parties' agreement and the Court's role in facilitating it.