Hemant & Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), praying for quashment of First Information Report in

crime No.502/2016, registered at police station  Y.D. Nagar, District  Mandsaur, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420,

409, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC and the consequent proceedings in S.T. No.139/2017 pending before the Court of Second Additional Sessions

Judge, Mandsaur.

Brief facts in nut shell are that Deepak Kumar Jain, proprietor of trading firm namely Maruti Food Products, Mandsaur. in the month of May 2016,

supplied 433.600 quintal of wheat grain worth Rs.12,92,544/- to M/s. E.K. Sons Agro Foods, Banglore through the applicants, who are brokers by

profession. When Deepak Kumar Jain did not receive the payment of aforesaid goods till July 2016, then he contacted the purchaser for payment,

who informed that they have already made the payment in H.D.F.C Bank account, Mandsaur Branch as per the instructions of applicant Hemant

Kumar Garg. On enquiry it was found that the applicants in association with the transporter advised the consignee M/s. E.K. Sons Agro Foods to

remit payment in the name of Starcom, through a fictitious account maintained at HDFC Bank, Mandsaur Branch. When the complainant demanded

the aforesaid amount from the applicants, they refused to pay the amount and also threatened to kill him if he files complaint against them or discloses

the matter to anybody. Complainant-Deepak Kumar Jain filed written complaint against the applicant at police station Y.d. Nagar, Mandsaur. On the

basis of which police registered case bearing crime No.502/2016, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471,

120(B) of IPC. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial Court, while passing the impugned order, framed charges against the

applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant and the applicants have arrived at peaceful settlement of

their disputes, out of Court and that they have filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C for accepting their compromise. It has appeared

from the record that on 19/06/2018, this Court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar, in

its report dated 19/06/2018 has stated that the applicants and complainant/respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute. The contention is that

as the parties have arrived at peaceful solution of their dispute and the mater neither relates to public at a large nor involves an offence of moral

turpitude. Under these circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction of the applicants, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under

Section 482 of 'The Code' can quash the proceedings with regard to offence under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC. Reference in this regard is placed on

the decision of this Court, Bench at Gwalior in the case of Raghuveer Singh & Ors. vs. The State of M.P., passed in M.Cr.C.No.3093/2017, in

support of his contentions.

It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that amicable settlement has been arrived

at between the parties, pursuant to which a compromise petition was also filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C and the same has been duly verified by

the Registrar of this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of record it appears that it was a dispute relating to business transaction which was amicably settled by the parties and the same

has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. It is not disputed that some of the sections involved in the case are non-compoundable

offences, however, Hon'ble the apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 has held that:

“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.â€​

The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in

(2014)6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in reads as under:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing

the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under

Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly

and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such

cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two

objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,

rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been

committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are

not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among

themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal

cases.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime

against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of

Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the

vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding

factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later

case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this

stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may

improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where

the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still

on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is

still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the

circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the

evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in

such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section

307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate

stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender

who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime

and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.â€​

Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at

between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation,

Section 482 of 'the Code' can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence

in question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim.

Accordingly, the prayer for quashment is hereby allowed and the F.I.R in crime No.502/2016, registered at police station  Y.D. Nagar, District

 Mandsaur, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC and the consequent proceedings in

S.T. No.139/2017 pending before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, against the applicants are hereby quashed.

Resultantly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per Rules.