2015 (3) TMI 653 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Amount in dispute already paid - Amicable settlement - Held that - From the records of the case, I find this is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioners have been charged can stricto sensu termed to be an offence against the State. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the fact that the complainant /respondents do not want to pursue the case, therefore, possibility of conviction of the petitioners is not only remote but impossible. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioners would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it, under section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/ and to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. The law on this subject has been summed up in a recent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. 2015 (2) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT . The parties have already reached an amicable settlement and at best it was the complainant, who could be said to be affected and aggrieved party, but herein even the affected and aggrieved party i.e. complainant is not interested to pursue the complaint and does not want to hold the petitioners responsible for the offence under the Act. Therefore, quashing of the complaint initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Keeping in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it is clear that the facts of this case do not in any manner fall within the exception culled out by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh case. - Accordingly Criminal complaint quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
3. Application of legal principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties.
4. Consideration of the nature of the offense and the impact on society in deciding whether to quash criminal cases.
5. Timing of settlement in relation to the stage of criminal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a petition seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court noted that the amount in question had already been paid by the petitioners to the complainant, and both parties acknowledged this fact. The complainant expressed no interest in pursuing the case, leading the court to consider quashing the complaint to prevent injustice and oppression to the petitioners.

2. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement reached between the parties. It emphasized that such powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in cases not involving heinous offenses. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's stance on distinguishing between the power under Section 482 and the power to compound offenses under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Legal principles regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlements were extensively discussed. The court highlighted the need to consider the ends of justice and prevention of abuse of the court's process when deciding on quashing criminal cases. It differentiated between offenses with a civil character, such as those arising from commercial transactions or family disputes, and serious offenses like murder or rape that impact society.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of assessing the nature of the offense and its societal impact when deciding whether to quash criminal cases. It outlined that offenses like those under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are considered heinous and serious crimes against society, requiring a careful examination of the evidence before quashing proceedings based on a settlement.

5. The timing of the settlement in relation to the stage of criminal proceedings was deemed crucial. The court provided guidance on when the High Court may accept settlements to quash proceedings based on the progress of the case, such as during the investigation stage or after the charge has been framed but before substantial evidence is presented. The judgment highlighted that settlements after conviction may not warrant quashing of proceedings, especially in cases of heinous crimes.

In conclusion, the court, after considering the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint, as the settlement between the parties indicated the ends of justice would be served by doing so.