Diwan Singh vs State & Anr

Sunil Gaur, J

Quashing of FIR 540 of 2006, under Sections 120B/419/420/448/467/471/468 IPC, registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi is sought on the

basis of statement (Annexure-B) made by the then Dy. General Manager of respondent bank on 22nd July, 2017.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that Mr.Vijay Gothwal, Sr. Manager of respondent bank is present in the Court as

Authorized Representative of the complainant bank. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State further submits that the allegations of

forgery etc. are not against petitioner but against co-accused, who has already died.

Mr.Vijay Gothwal, appears on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant- bank and submits that the complainant-bank is bound by the statement

(Annexure-B) made on its behalf on 22nd July, 2017.

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. 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 the same as the invocation of 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The

power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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.

16.4. 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.

16.5. 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.

16.6. 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 dacoity

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.

16.7. 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.

16.8. 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.

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act

complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.â€​

In view of statement (Annexure-B) made on behalf of respondent/complainant bank, I find that continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in

question qua petitioner would be an exercise in futility. This petition is accordingly allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by petitioner

with Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the receipt of cost, FIR No. 540 of 2006 under

Sections 120B/419/420/448/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating thereafter shall stand quashed.

This petition and the application are disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Dasti.