Gajanand Khandekar and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—The matter comes up on an application (Crl. M.A. No. 336/2015) moved on behalf of respondent No. 2 with a prayer for handing over the demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- to him and with a prayer for not proceeding further against the petitioners in respect of allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR No. 290/2014 dated 10.10.2014 of Police Station, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 has lodged the FIR No. 290/2014 on 10.10.2014 against the petitioner at Police Station, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara while alleging that a contract for construction of road was awarded to the petitioners construction firm and for that Rs. 7,00,000/- was also been given to them, but despite payment of the said amount, the petitioners have not constructed the road and, therefore, misappropriated the money given to them by the respondent No. 2. On receiving the said report, the police has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 406 and 420 IPC.

On 09.01.2015, after taking into consideration the contention of the petitioners that the construction of the road could not be completed because the officers of the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as ''the RSWM Ltd.'') had requested them to do the work after some time and in view of undertaking given by the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to refund the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the RSWM Ltd., this Court has stayed the further investigation in connection with the impugned FIR subject to the condition that the petitioners should deposit a demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- by 15.01.2015 in favour of RSWM Ltd. with the Investigating Officer.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the petitioners have deposited demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- in favour of the RSWM Ltd. which is lying with the Investigating Officer.

Now the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted before this Court that since the petitioners have deposited the demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the Investigating Officer, the respondent No. 2 does not want to press the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the impugned FIR and also submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been resolved amicably, therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners be handed over to the respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been settled and the petitioners have no objection if the demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- is handed over to the respondent No. 2-Company. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed.

The Hon''ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has held as below:--

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the petitioners have already deposited demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the Investigating Officer and have no objection if the said demand draft is handed over to the respondent No. 2-Company and also looking to the fact that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 has already been resolved, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the application (CRLMA No. 336/2015) as well as this Criminal Misc. Petition are allowed and the FIR No. 290/2014 dated 10.10.2014 of Police Station, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara are hereby quashed. The Investigating Officer, who is investigating into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR is directed to hand over the demand draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- issued in favour of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited by the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 on the same day when the certified copy this order is placed before him.

Stay petition is disposed of.