Radha Raman Sharma vs State Of M.P. & Anr.

I.A No. 7175/2020, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned State counsel is taken up, considered and allowed for the

reasons mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned State counsel during final hearing.

In this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR registered at crime No.70/2020 at police station Gwalior,

District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC on the ground of compromise.

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 to the effect that the petitioner met

him when he visited his home town and assured him that he would procure job for his relatives namely Premnarayan and Shivam in Indo Tibetan

Border Police (for brevity, ITBP) and in lieu of appointment, the petitioner demanded Rs. 12 Lakhs for securing the job and the complainant deposited

the aforesaid amount in installments in the Bank account of the petitioner. After lapse of considerable time, when no appointment order was received

by the complainant, therefore, he asked the petitioner about said appointment, but the petitioner started giving him false assurances. Thereafter, inspite

of repeated requests, the appointment order was neither received nor the amount was refunded to the complainant. However, after passage of some

time, the petitioner gave the complainant post dated cheques drawn on the State Bank of India. Thereafter, when the said cheque was presented in

the Bank, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant served a notice to the petitioner, but to no avail. Since the petitioner had cheated the

complainant, therefore, he was left with no option, but to file an FIR against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and has no connection with the said

offence nor he has any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is serving the Nation with total integrity and utmost devotion and is posted at 13th

Battalion, ITBP, Gangtok, Sikkim on the post of Constable. He further submits that lodging of FIR against the petitioner is nothing, but abuse of

process of law. He further submits that this is a case of cheque bounce and the complainant ought to have filed a case under Negotiable Instruments

Act, but just to harass the petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged. The complainant has twisted the facts and narrated entire different story

inasmuch as the said amount was taken by the petitioner as loan from the complainant and thereafter the amount was returned by cheque which was

dishonoured. The present case is of civil nature. During pendency of the trial, the entire amount of Rs. 12,75,000/- has been refunded to the

complainant by the petitioner and now, since the petitioner has returned the entire amount to the complainant, therefore, no case survives. On these

grounds, petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings arising out of crime No. 70/2020.

On the other hand, learned Panel lawyer for the State submits that petitioner has played fraud and the crime is against the society, therefore,

legitimate prosecution of a person cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise. Moreover, petitioner is a responsible person and is working in

prestigious disciplined force i.e ITBP and has tried to cheat the complainant on the ground that he has good relations in ITBP and he will manage

appointment. It is further submitted that in identical situation, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 18239/2017 (Vishvaveer Singh

Bhadoriya vs State of M.P.) had dismissed the petition vide order dated 31/10/2017 seeking quashment of FIR on the basis of compromise. It is

further submitted that aforesaid case was challenged in SLP before the Apex Court and the same was also stood dismissed. The petitioner has not

brought on record any document to show that the said amount was taken in the form of loan from the complainant. Secondly, refund of amount of Rs.

12,75,000/- itself goes to show that the petitioner is at fault and, therefore, no ground for quashing of FIR is made out and prays for rejection of the

petition.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 30 3has issued certain guidelines with regard to

quashment of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, which reads thus :-

“58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences

are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute

between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have

harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only

because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law,

with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of

moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement

between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen

out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the

family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such

offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or

F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,

justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard

and fast category can be prescribed.

59.xxxxxxxxxxxxx

60.xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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€​

From the above, it is clear that the petitioner is working in ITBP and is posted at Gangtok, Sikkim which is a disciplined force and is discharging the

duties of Constable and serving the country. The petitioner infact has tried to cheat the family members of the complainant by assuring them of

appointment in ITBP. This is a glaring example of offence which is not only against the society, but also against the country.

In such circumstances and in view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the offence is heinous and

against the society, therefore, the legitimate prosecution of a person cannot be stiffled on the ground of compromise.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR as well as entire criminal

proceedings arising out of crime No. 70/2020 registered at police station Gwalior, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC

on the basis of compromise.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Needless to state that petitioner has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 18/05/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7818/2020.