The petitioner has filed the present petition invoking the provisions of section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the complaint being Court Inquiry No.18 of 2004 filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Patan. In that complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein, petitioners No.1 and 2 are arraigned as accused No.1 and 2 respectively.
2. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant was working as a salesman in the wholesale dealing of gold and silver. He used to take finance from a financing firm called 'Shubhlaxmi Enterprise', Patan and had transactions with it. It was further stated that accused No.1 was working in that financing firm, whereas wife of accused No.1 was an inactive partner in the firm. Accused No.2 had no connection with that firm. According to the complaint, it was a practice to obtain blank cheques from the person who comes to borrow from the firm. It was alleged that accused No.1 taking advantage of the status of his wife as a partner misused certain cheques of Patan Nagrik Co-operative Bank given before August 2003 by the complainant. It was alleged that accused No.1 and 2 acting in collusion and by forging the details in the cheques deposited them into the bank account. The complaint was filed alleging offences under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120-B, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3 of the Money Lenders Act, 2008. The learned Magistrate thereupon ordered inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 22.02.2004.
2.1 It is stated by the petitioner in the petition that the present complainant had given cheque to petitioner No.1 for Rs.50,000/- on 14.07.2003, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the petitioner No.1 had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in August 2003 and in which the learned Magistrate had issued process. It the case of the petitioner that the present complaint was filed as a counter-blast to the said proceedings under section 138. It was further stated that a cheque given by the present complainant for Rs.2 lacs to petitioner No.2 was also returned unpaid and in respect of that also complaint under section 138 was filed in the competent court at Sanchor, Rajasthan. Raising various contentions the petitioner has prayed that the present complaint is liable to be quashed being in the nature of abuse of process of law.
3. When the petition was posted for final hearing today, learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah and learned advocate Mr. M.M.Tirmizi for the petitioner and for the respondent No.2 - original complainant respectively appeared. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L.Pandya appeared for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned advocate for respondent No.2 jointly submitted that the parties had amicably settled the matter outside the court. They produced the settlement pursis duly signed by the parties and countersigned by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The parties had put their signatures before the Notary on 05.05.2012. They were duly identified.
4. The learned advocates requested the court to dispose of the petition by taking settlement pursis on record as the parties had compromised the matter. It was submitted that in view of the settlement having been arrived at between the parties, the offences were compoundable with permission of the court and the complaint, therefore, may be quashed.
5. The settlement pursis is taken on record. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, it is duly found that the parties have reached compromise out of their own volition. The disputes between the parties have come to an end by virtue of amicable settlement. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, and from the settlement pursis, the court is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that the settlement has been genuinely arrived at by and between the parties.
6. Learned advocates pertinently submitted also that Misc. Criminal Application No.4264 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners in respect of another complaint filed against them on 30.01.2004 alleging offences under section 406, 408, 420, 463, 465, 467, 114 and 471 of IPC by one Mukesh Vadilal Thakkar and Atul Vadilal Thakkar, the subject matter of which was connected with the complaint which is under consideration in the present petition, was also settled amicably and thereupon that MCA was also disposed of by this court on the basis of compromise pursis by compounding the offences and quashing the complaint.
7. In view of above, having found that the compromise pursis placed on behalf of the parties and taken on record reflects the genuine settlement willingly arrived at by the parties by amicable process, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to undue harassment to them. No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings initiated upon the complaint being Inquiry No.18 of 2004, when the parties have reached settlement ending their dispute so as to end the litigation.
8. It is settled proposition of law that when the chances of conviction are bleak, the complaint can be quashed even in respect of non compoundable offence as held by Supreme Court. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 2 GLH 351] in which after referring to decision in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1978 SC 47), the Supreme Court observed as under:
"7.
The High Court has relied upon Madhu Limaye's case for coming to the conclusion that since the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are non-compoundable, it would be impermissible in law to quash the FIR on the ground that there has been a settlement between the parties. The decision in Madhu Limaye's case has been misread and misapplied by the High Court. The question considered in that case was when there was a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings, what would be its effect on exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. ....
"8.
It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that 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. ..."
9. In light of above facts and law, it is appropriate to exercise powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C and quash the complaint as prayed for by the parties. It may also be observed that when the present petition is pending before the court, it would be proper and reasonable not to relegate the petitioners to the trial court requiring them to make applications under section 320 of Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly and in the result, the complaint being Inquiry No.18 of 2004 and order dated 22.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(N.V.
ANJARIA, J.) [SN DEVU PPS] Top