Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2137 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - proclaimed offender - whether when the main FIR itself has been compromised between the parties, subsequent FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise? - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that the objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for declaring an accused as proclaimed person is mainly to ensure that the person remains present before the Court to face the trial and to receive the punishment for his alleged conduct, which has constituted the offence. If the person has appeared before the Court, even after he was declared as proclaimed person or is granted bail by the Court after such declaration then the object of the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure stands achieved. In the present case, as is borne out from the record, the main FIR under Section 420 of the IPC was registered on 11.6.2016. For the first time, the police had given him a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. on 3.5.2017. However, the petitioner did not appear before the prosecuting agency, which led to issuance of arrest warrant of the present petitioner. Since the warrants of arrest cannot be executed as such, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated - the object of coercive measures which was enforced against the petitioner stands duly achieved. The Trial Court had even granted regular bail to the petitioner for the offence under Section 174-A of the IPC. This Court feels that since the main FIR has already been compromised between the parties and is not going to proceed further, therefore, it would not be justified to make the petitioner to face trial only for an offence under Section 174-A of the IPC. Therefore, even the FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018, which pertains to offence under Section 174-A of the IPC deserves to be quashed. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR No.213 dated 11.06.2016 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. 2. Quashing of FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018 under Section 174-A of the IPC. 3. Validity and impact of the compromise dated 29.09.2017 between the parties. 4. Legal principles regarding the quashing of FIRs based on compromise. 5. The role of coercive measures in ensuring the presence of the accused in court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR No.213 dated 11.06.2016 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.213 dated 11.06.2016, registered under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, based on a compromise dated 29.09.2017 between the parties. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram confirmed the genuineness of the compromise, noting that it was made without undue influence, coercion, or pressure. 2. Quashing of FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018 under Section 174-A of the IPC: The petitioner also sought to quash FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018 under Section 174-A of the IPC, which was registered after the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. The court examined whether the quashing of this FIR could be justified based on the compromise of the main FIR. 3. Validity and impact of the compromise dated 29.09.2017 between the parties: The court emphasized the importance of compromise in resolving disputes, noting that the ultimate aim of the legal system is to reconcile social conflicts. It acknowledged that while civil disputes can be freely compromised, criminal disputes have broader societal impacts. However, the court recognized that compromises in criminal cases should be given due regard, particularly when the offences are not of a grave nature. 4. Legal principles regarding the quashing of FIRs based on compromise: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, which clarified that the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings if it serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of the court process. The court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime before quashing. Heinous offences like murder, rape, and dacoity, or those involving public servants, cannot be quashed based on compromise. However, offences with a civil flavor, such as commercial or matrimonial disputes, can be quashed if the compromise renders the possibility of conviction remote. 5. The role of coercive measures in ensuring the presence of the accused in court: The court discussed the purpose of declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender, which is to ensure their presence in court for trial. If the accused appears after being declared a proclaimed offender and faces trial without defaulting again, the court can take a lenient view and quash the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Conclusion: The court concluded that the present case did not fall under the exceptions where compromise-based quashing is not permitted. Given that the main FIR was compromised and the petitioner had subsequently complied with court procedures, it would not serve justice to continue proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC. Therefore, both FIR No.213 dated 11.06.2016 and FIR No.138 dated 09.04.2018 were quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
|