Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (10) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs cannot be supported. The FiIR, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the FIR was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the FIR, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the ld Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Markandey Katju, J . - I respectfully agree with my ld brother Hon'ble Kabir J. that the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed, the question may have to be decided in some subsequent decision or decisions (preferably by a larger Bench) as to which non-compoundabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quashed under Section 482 CrPC on account of the fact that the offences complained of were not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. The objection taken in the said case has also been raised by Mr. B.B. Singh, learned advocate for the respondent State. 4. In B.S. Joshi's case, this Court drew a distinction between compounding an offence as permitted under Section 320 CrPC and quashing of the complaint or criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as also Article 226 of the Constitution. Pointing out that the appellant in the said case had not prayed for compounding the offence as the same was not compoundable, this Court observed with reference to the earlier decision in Pepsi Food Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998CriLJ1 , that where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts could not be laid down. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole object of preventing abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was also observed that it is well settled that these powers have n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... int, the High Court did not consider it an appropriate case for exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the same. 8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in cash every month from me. The receipts issued to me put up with neither rubber stamp nor used the letter head of Real Auto Deals. The cheques received from me, encashed him in different-different names instead depositing in the account of Real Auto Deals. When it has come to my notice that he is playing fraud with me, then visited the bank and got stopped the payment of the cheques. He came to me when the cheque was dishonoured and asked me why you stop the payment. I explained him that I have already sent you a notice stating that I will make the payments of the installments in the name of Real Auto Deals but you are not doing so, therefore, I got stopped the payments. Thereafter, on 27.12.1995 at about 10 O'clock he came to me in Jhilmil along with an unknown person, I can recognize him if he comes to me, took my said Maruti Van with his help without my consent by showing me a paper duly stamped by the police. Vijay Lakshmi Finance, Real Auto Deals and Man Mohan Sharma, have sold my vehicle to some other place by making my forged signatures and by playing fraud with me, in connivance of each other. The appropriate legal action may kindly be taken against all these persons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seems to follow that the offences mentioned in the FIR were not compoundable except in relation to the allegations about Section 420 IPC. 21. There are other provisions in the IPC e.g. Section 498A which apparently cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court in view of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. 22. However, this was creating a lot of difficulty and hardship to the public and hence a way out was found by this Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana 2003CriLJ2028 . In that decision this Court referred to its own earlier decision in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1978CriLJ165 in which it was held (vide para 8) that the power under Section 482 should not be exercised when there is an express bar in some other provision of the Code. The Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) also referred to the decision in Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa 1999CriLJ3496 which held that since the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable the High Court cannot compound the offence. 23. Despite the above decisions this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) relying on its own decision in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy 1977CriLJ1125 observed that the H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct doing something which the Cr.P.C. has expressly prohibited. Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of judicial power to direct compounding of a non-compoundable offence. 28. However, it has to be pointed out that Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the other provisions in the Cr.P.C. One such other provision is Section 482 Cr.P.C. which reads: Saving of inherent power of High Court . - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 29. The words Nothing in this Code used in Section 482 is a non obstante clause, and gives it overriding effect over other provisions in the Cr.P.C. The words or otherwise to secure the ends of justice in Section 482 implies that to se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot. 34. I am expressing this opinion because Shri B.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent has rightly expressed his concern that the decision in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates