AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Basha, J.—The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the First Information Report pending
in Crime No. 674 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the matter was amicably settled between
the parties, viz., the petitioners/accused as well as the defacto complainant, the second respondent herein. It is submitted by the learned counsel
that already a joint compromise memo was also filed before this Court dated 25.02.2008. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, namely, A-l and A-2 by filing a
complaint and registering the same in Cr. No. 674 of 2005 for the alleged offence under Sections 120 (b), 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC is liable to
be quashed.
Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the second respondent.
I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also perused the materials available on record.
It is seen that the petitioners have been arrayed as A-l and A-2 and they have been implicated in this case for the alleged offences/as stated
above. The fact remains that it is reported before this Court today that the matter was amicably settled between the parties, viz., petitioners/A-l
and A-2 and the second respondent/ defacto complainant and a joint compromise memo dated 25.02.2008 was also filed before this Court which
reads hereunder:
Joint Memo of Compromise
The parties above name states as follows :
(l) The petitioner states that a case has been registered in Crime No. 674 of 2004 on the file of the Crime Branch police station, Chennai, u/s
120(b), 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently, altered to Sections 469 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2) The petitioner states that the petitioner had filed this petition to quash the said complaint.
(3) The petitioner states that since there was no impediment to investigate, the 1st respondent proceeded further and laid a charge sheet in the
case. The final report was taken on file and the case is now pending in C.C. No. 18980 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
(4) The petitioner states that during the pendency of these proceedings, the Employer of the petitioner M/s. Jindal Saw Limited and Employer of
respondent 2/complainant have arrived at a memorandum of Understanding to withdraw all pending inter-se litigations between the parties or their
employees as contained in the said memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2007.
(5) The said Memorandum of Understanding also includes the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2/Complainant by
agreeing to join the prayer in the present petition filed by the present petitioner. A copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated
21.12.2007 is filed in the typed set of papers.
(6) In pursuance to the said Memorandum of Understanding the respondent No. 2 agreed to join the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the
criminal complaint and the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, arising out of crime No.
674 of 2004 Crime Branch, Chennai, under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code altered to Sections 469 and 109
of the Indian Penal Code and to pass necessary orders for disposal of the case.
(7) The petitioner states that the present application is in the interest of justice and no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the present
application is allowed.
(8) The appellant therefore that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to :
(a) take the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2007 on record and quash the criminal complaint in C.C.Nol8980 of 2005 on the file of
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai, arising out of Crime No. 674 of 2004 P.S. Crime Branch, Chennai, under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian
Penal Code altered to Sections 469 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and all sub sequential orders passed in the case.
(b) to pass such other further order (s) as this Hon''ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Dated at Madras on this 25th day of February 2008.
Sd/-
Petitioner
Sd/-
Counsel for Petitioner
Sd/-
Respondent
Sd/-
Counsel for Respondent
A perusal of the compromise memo dated 25.02.2008 clearly shows that the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the defacto
complainant is not inclined to proceed further. As a matter of fact, both the petitioners and the defacto complainant have consented for quashing
the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 120 (b), 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC in C.C. No. 18980 of
2005 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is pertinent to be noted that the offences alleged
against the petitioners under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are compoundable offences, but whereas the offences under Sections 120(b), 468 and
471 IPC are non-compoundable offences.
The Hon''ble Apex Court has held in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, that,
The decision of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of
quashing the criminal proceedings or F.I.R. Or complaint as vested in S.482 or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise
of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a
power.
In the decision cited supra, the Hon''ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings relating to an offence u/s 498-A IPC in spite of the fact that
the said Section is a non-compoundable one.
It is relevant to note that a Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another,
has held in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (cited supra) that,
The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behavior. It is the soul of justice and if the power u/s 482 of
the Cr. P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is ""finest hour of
justice"". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can
safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the
power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any
premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.
The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr. P.C. which can affect the inherent
power of this Court u/s 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the
proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar u/s 320 of the Cr. P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to
secure the ends of justice. The power u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. is to be exercised ex-debito Justified to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There
can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it
sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an
extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony
and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should Endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful
composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Therefore, in view of the above settled principle of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi''s case (cited supra) as well as the
Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh''s case (cited supra), the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein
is liable to be quashed even in respect of the non-compoundable offences, viz., under Sections 120(b), 468 and 471 IPC and as such in view of
the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 25.02.2008 as the matter was amicably settled between the parties, viz., the petitioners and the second
respondent/ defacto complainant, nothing survives in the criminal proceedings and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings
to continue and therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is constrained to quash
the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein and accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners pending in C.C. No. 18980 of 2005
on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous petition
is closed.