HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.M.P.No.4341 of 2014 and Crl.P.No.7403 of 2013 ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.354 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties. Originally a private complaint was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 415, 418, 403, 499 and 500 read with 34 IPC.
The averments in the complaint would disclose that the complainant company used to supply goods to accused Nos.1 to 3. On 30.,08.2011 accused No.2 sent a mail stating that the accused had transferred Rs.12,50,000/- to the accused No.4 on behalf of the complainant. Accused No.4 was a supplier to the complainant company. Believing the said representation, the complainant company made an entry in the books of accounts in good faith and considered the same as receipt from the accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.1 informed that balance amount to be paid was nil. But, accused No.4 has not received Rs.12,50,000/- alleged to have been transferred by accused No.1 company. The informant is alleged to have informed accused No.1 about non- receipt of Rs.12,50,000/-. When the complainant asked for payment of Rs.12,50,000/-, the accused are alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on these allegations the above complaint came to be filed.
Along with the present petition, the second respondent filed Crl.P.M.P.No.4341 of 2014 seeking permission of the court to compound the offences. The affidavit of the second respondent filed along with the said petition would disclose that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their dispute.
Today the second respondent and the petitioners are present in the court and they were identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the second respondent stated that he has settled the matter with the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in GIAN SINGH V. [1]
STATE OF PUNJAB held as under:
“53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
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.”
Keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court, I shall now deal with the case on hand.
A perusal of the averments in the report would clearly indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely an outcome of a business transaction that took place between the accused and the second respondent. The dispute between the parties appear to be personal in nature. As held by this court in CHALLA
[2]
VENKATA RAMI REDDY @ REDDY V. STATE OF A.P if the offence is not so serious and has no concern with the society at large, it can be quashed owing to compromise between the parties.
Taking into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties and as the offence alleged being not grave, this court is of the opinion that continuation of investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law. As the possibility of conviction would be remote and bleak extreme injustice would be caused to the accused by not quashing the investigation despite full and complete settlement between the parties.
Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P.No.4341 of 2014 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.354 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 16.04.2014 gkv
[1] (2012) 10 SCC 303
[2] 2013(2) ALD (CRL) 916