The court quashed criminal proceedings filed for cheating and forgery offences after the complainant conceded to the quashing due to settlement of the dispute and the complainant's death.
Application allowed; complaint and connected proceedings deemed quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2599 OF 2010
Parmeet Arora @ Sonia ...Applicant
vs.
Mahadevan Subbiah & Anr....Respondent
Mr.Rajendra Singh Saluja for the Applicant.
Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for the State.
Mr.Devendra Udeshi for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2010
P.C. :-
1Heard the learned Counsel for the
applicant, the learned APP for the State, the
learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and respondent
no.1 who is the complainant who has appeared in the
court.
2This application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the
complaint filed by respondent no.1 for the offences
2 Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467 of the IPC
registered with NRI Sagari Police Station, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai, vide C.R.No.67/2009. In the complaint,
it is alleged that the applicant herein had misused
the credit card which was issued in the name of
Mrs.Leena Garg.
3The learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the parties have now settled the
dispute. Respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit-in-
reply in which he has stated that he has no
objection if the criminal case is quashed since the
Bank has received payment of Rs.10 lakhs from the
applicant in full and final settlement of their
claim. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan
Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2008
Supreme Court 1969 has observed in para 5 as
under :-
�5.It is on the basis of this
compromise that the application was
filed in the High Court for quashing
Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
3
of proceedings which has been
dismissed by the impugned order. We
notice from a reading of the FIR and
the other documents on record that
the dispute was purely a personal one
between two contesting parties and
that it arose out of extensive
business dealings between them and
that there was absolutely no public
policy involved in the nature of the
allegations made against the accused.
We are, therefore, of the opinion
that no useful purpose would be
served in continuing with the
proceedings in the light of the
compromise and also in the light of
the fact that the complainant has, on
11th January 2004, passed away and the
possibility of a conviction being
recorded has thus to be ruled out. We
need to emphasis that it is perhaps
advisable that in disputes where the
question involved is of a purely
personal nature, the Court should
ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromiseevenincriminal
proceedings as keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result
in favour of the prosecution is a
luxury which the Courts, grossly
overburdened as they are, cannot
afford and that the time so saved can
be utilized in deciding more
effective and meaningful litigation.
This is a common sense approach to
the matter based on ground of
realitiesandbereftofthe
technicalities of the law. We see
from the impugned order that the
learned Judge has confused a
compounding of an offence with the
4 Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
quashing of proceedings. The outer
limit of Rs.250/- which has led to
the dismissal of the application is
an irrelevant factor in the later
case. We accordingly allow the appeal
and in the peculiar facts of the
case, direct that FIR No. 155 dated
17thNovember 2001 P.S. Kotwali,
Amritsarandallproceedings
connected therewith shall be deemed
to be quashed.
Appeal allowed. �
Similarly, in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs.
State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2008
Supreme Court 1968, the Supreme Court has observed
in para 2 as under :-
�2.This appeal is directed
against the order dated 24th July 2006
rejecting the prayer for quashing of
FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S.
CitySonepatregisteredunder
Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469,
471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of
IPC. During the pendency of these
proceedingsinthisCourt,
Cri.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has
been filed putting on record a
compromise deed dated 30thApril,
2007. The fact that a compromise has
indeed been recorded is admitted by
all sides and in terms of the
5 Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
compromise the disputes which are
purely personal in nature and arise
out of commercial transactions, have
been settled in terms of the
compromise with one of the terms of
the compromise being that proceedings
pending in court may be withdrawn or
compromised or quashed, as the case
may be. In the light of the
compromise, it is unlikely that the
prosecution will succeed in the
matter. We also see that the dispute
is a purely personal one and no
public policy is involved in the
transactions that had been entered
into between the parties. To continue
with the proceedings, therefore,
would be a futile exercise. We
accordingly allow the appeal and
quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March, 2005
P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent
proceedings.�
4In my view, the ratio of the said judgments
squarely would apply to the facts of the present
case. Respondent no.1 no longer has any objection if
the complaint is quashed. Sections 419, 420 of the
IPC are compoundable offences. Section 467, however,
is not compoundable. However, Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C. does not curtail the power of the High Court
under Section 482 to quash a complaint even if it is
not compoundable. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
6
Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another,
reported in 2003 Supreme Court 1386 has observed in
paragraphs 8, 14 and 15 as under :-
�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 or 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. It is, however, a different
matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to
exercise or not such a power.
14.There is no doubt that the
object of introducing Chapter XX-A
containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by
relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives
who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
The hyper-technical view would be
counter productive and would act
against interest of women and against
the object for which this provision
was added. There is every likelihood
7 Crim.Appln. No.2599/2010
that non-exercise of inherent power
to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women
from settling earlier. That is not
the object of Chapter XXA of Indian
Penal Code.
15.In view of the above
discussion, we hold that the High
Court in exercise of its inherent
powers can quash criminal proceedings
or FIR or complaint and Section 320
of the Code does not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 of the
Code.�
impediment in quashing the criminal complaint filed
by respondent no.1 in view of the affidavit-in-reply
filed by the said respondent.
6Application, therefore, is allowed in terms
of prayer clause (a). Application is, accordingly,
disposed of.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when disputes arise from personal/business dealings and have been settled via compromise.
Whether Section 320 Cr.P.C. (compoundability) limits the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶24
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1969 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.Followed¶33
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1968 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶42
2003 Supreme Court 1386
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Parmeet Arora @ Sonia
Mahadevan Subbiah & Anr
V.M.KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court