2013 (10) TMI 1427 - SC - Indian Laws

Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint u/s-482 CrPC - Criminal court's power for compounding the offences u/s 320 of CrPC is distinct different - No power of quashing heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity - Commitment of offences w.r.t. Banking activities offences under Sections 420/471 IPC - Harmful effect on the public - Threatens well being of society - HELD THAT - when the specific allegation is made against the respondent-accused that he obtained the loan on the basis of forged document with the help of Bank officials, yet on investigation it was found that the ingredients of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property of the bank (Section 420 IPC) and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document (Section 471 IPC), charge sheet was required to be submitted under Sections 420/471 IPC against the accused persons. Offences w.r.t. Banking activities - HELD THAT - The debt which was due to the Bank was recovered by the Bank with an order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a compromise between the offender and the victim. The offences when committed in relation with Banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 IPC have harmful effect on the public and threaten the well being of the society. These offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. Further it may be claimed that the bank is the victim in such cases but, actually, the society including Bank's customers are infirm. There was neither an allegation regarding any abuse of process of any Court nor anything on record to suggest that the offenders were entitled to secure the order in the ends of justice. Decision in the case of GIAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR 2010 (11) TMI 1058 - SUPREME COURT was followed. In the instant case, the High Court did not consider the above factors while passing the impugned order. Hence, Supreme Court was of opinion that the High Court has erred in addressing the issue in right perspective.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Settlement between the respondent and the Bank officials.
- Interpretation of the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Consideration of compromise in criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences.
- Application of legal principles in quashing criminal proceedings.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to an order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case involved a conspiracy leading to wrongful loss to a bank through fraudulent loans. The accused obtained loans based on forged documents, resulting in significant financial loss to the bank. The respondent settled the debt with the bank, leading to an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

The Court examined the settlement between the respondent and the bank officials. It was noted that the settlement did not amount to a compromise between the offender and the victim, as the offences committed had harmful effects on the public and the society at large. The offences under Sections 420/471 IPC, related to banking activities, were deemed to be of serious nature and involving moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that such offences impact not just the bank but the society as a whole.

The interpretation of the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was crucial in this case. The Court referred to the Gian Singh case, which discussed the scope of the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences. The Court highlighted that while the High Court has wide plenitude in exercising this power, it must consider the nature and gravity of the crime before quashing proceedings.

The Court analyzed the legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings. It emphasized that serious offences like those involving financial fraud and cheating cannot be easily compounded, especially when they impact the public and society. The Court held that in cases where the possibility of conviction is not remote and the continuation of the criminal case serves the interest of justice, quashing the proceedings may not be appropriate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment quashing the criminal proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. The Court stressed the importance of addressing such cases expeditiously and ensuring that the legal principles are applied correctly to uphold justice.