Criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences should not be quashed, under the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., easily just because parties have amicably settled the dispute themselves.

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachur , Justice,  dismissed the appeal petition to quash the FIR lodged against appellants/accused persons, by Respondent in the present case, who were alleged to have  committed offences punishable under Sections 384 (punishment for extortion), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.) , 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 fraudulently or dishonestly using false document as genuine document), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 506(2) ( criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860,

 

The appellants had came up with the appeal in the Supreme Court after the High Court of Gujarat  declined to quash the FIR  on the ground that the charges against the  appellants is of serious nature, which can render potential threat to society.

Prayer for quashing the first information report was moved before the High Court, on the ground that the dispute was amicably settled with the complainant and the  complainant had also filed an affidavit  on the respect.

Public Prosecutor opposed the application for quashing, on two grounds.

1. Appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them u/s 70, Code of Criminal  Procedure.

2. The Appellants had criminal antecendents.

The High Court observed that there is a fair idea about the modus operandi adopted by the Appellants for grabbing the land they as they had bogus opened accounts. The High Court had held that the case involves extortion, forgery and conspiracy and all the appellants have acted in team. Hence, in the interest of the society, the court decided not to accept the settlement and the FIR because the charges and are of serious nature and the activities of the appellants render them a potential threat to society. The prayer to quash the first information was rejected.

  Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel  submitted, after citing several case laws, that the dispute between the complainant and the appellants arose from a transaction for the sale of land. It is essentially a civil matter and since parties have settled amicably, the proper course for the High Court was to quash the FIR in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State supported the judgement of the High Court stating the (a) seriousness of the allegation; (b) conduct of the appellants who were absconding; and (c) the criminal antecedents of the appellants. So they are not entitled to relief of quashing of FIR merely  because they had entered into a settlement with the complainant/respondent.

Taking notes of earlier decisions of the Supreme Court  in State of Maharastra  vs.   Vikram Anantrai Doshi 2014 SCC 29, opined  that the criminal proceedings involving a non-compoundable offence  should not be quashed. The offence involving finance is a social wrong as it has immense societal impact. The ultimate victim is the collective.

The Court also relied on the decision of Narinder Singh vs. State of Panjab (2014), wherein it was observed that in respect of offences against the society, it is the duty of the State to punish the offender. In consequence, deterrence provides a rationale for punishing the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the offence should be punish to deter others from committing a similar crime. on the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of deterrence. in such a case, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between the parties would lead a better relations between them and would resolve a private dispute. It was also observed that the timing of a settlement is of significance in determining the matter under section 482.

 

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Gujarat not to quash the FIR because as the FIR demonstrate serious allegation against the appellants as the offences are not merely  involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties but they are offences that involve allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfer of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. These offences cannot be construed to merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime.

 

FACT OF THE CASE:

 Appellants along with a broker approached the complainant to purchase the land  where they agreed to buy for a consideration of Rs. 1,13,58,711/-  out of which an amount of 11 lakhs was given in cash for only Plot No. 56.

The complainant alleged that the appellant handed him seven cheques each in the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs in the name of six brothers as the property was jointly hold by all the brothers. When the complainant followed up for the remaining amount with the  purchaser, the balance money was not paid and, on the contrary, the complainant was threatened of a forcible  transfer of the land.

 The  complainant alleged that he  came to know from the office of the Sub-Registrar that a sale deed has been registered, in the name of one of the appellant, not only in respect of Plot No. 56 (which was agreed to be sold) but also in respect of Plots which were not in question. The entire lots are valued at Rs. 12.50 crores.

The complainant realized that the power of attorney in the name of the siblings had been forged. The complainant stated  neither he nor any of his siblings had given a power of attorney.

The complainant had alleged that a conspiracy was hatched by the appellants and by the other co-accused resulting into the transfer of valuable land belonging to the complainant and his siblings, on the basis of forged documents.

 Thus,  complainant lodged an FIR against the appellants.

 

On the subject, the Court formulated the governing principles to guide the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

 “(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognise and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not het same as the invocation of the jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complain should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(5) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and deceit cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

 

Case:  Parbatbhai aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. 

Date of Judgement: 4.10.2017.