9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 587 - SC - Indian LawsOffence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - we are not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an offence that is not compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), can be quashed based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-Compoundable Offence Quashability: The primary issue raised in the writ petition was whether a non-compoundable offence under the Cr.P.C. could be quashed given the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Background Facts: - Petitioner No.1 opened a Current Account with the Bank of Maharashtra, which was later converted into a Cash Credit Account with various credit facilities. - The Petitioner defaulted on payments amounting to Rs. 188 lacs, leading to criminal cases being registered by the CBI. - The charges included allegations of securing credit facilities through forged documents and fraudulent utilization of these facilities. - A criminal case was also registered against an individual connected to the petitioners for using forged Powers of Attorney in property transactions. - Despite ongoing criminal proceedings, the banks involved offered a One-Time Settlement, which was accepted by the petitioners, leading to the clearance of dues and a compromise with the banks. Legal Arguments: - Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court had previously exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash non-compoundable offences in special circumstances (citing cases like Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana). They contended that the facts of their case were similar to those in Nikhil Merchant's case, where the Court had quashed criminal proceedings after the parties reached a settlement. - Respondent's Argument: The Additional Solicitor General argued that settlement of disputes with the banks did not absolve the petitioners of their criminal liability. He emphasized the gravity of the offence, involving fraudulent transactions and offering a property as collateral without having a valid title. He further argued that the issue of quashing non-compoundable offences was under reconsideration by a larger Bench in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and thus, the Court should refrain from deciding the present case. Court's Analysis and Decision: - The Court reviewed several precedents, including Nikhil Merchant's case, B.S. Joshi's case, and Manoj Sharma's case, which indicated that the power to quash non-compoundable offences should be used sparingly and only in special circumstances. - The Court noted that the golden thread running through these decisions was that continuing criminal proceedings after a compromise between the complainant and the accused would be futile and an abuse of the process of the court. - The Court distinguished the present case from Nikhil Merchant's case, where the dispute had civil and criminal facets, whereas, in the present case, the emphasis was on the criminal intent of the petitioners. - The Court held that the facts of the present case did not warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings as the allegations involved a larger conspiracy and fraudulent intent. - The Court concluded that the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench in Gian Singh's case did not preclude it from deciding the present case based on existing precedents. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be circumspect and based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The decision underscores the principle that settlement of civil disputes does not automatically absolve criminal liability, especially in cases involving fraudulent intent and conspiracy. The Court also reiterated that the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench does not stay other proceedings involving similar issues.
|
