9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1530 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction of High Court - whether FIR and the consequential proceedings alleging non-compoundable offences could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the Respondents-accused? - Doctrine of judicial restraint. HELD THAT - Since the present case pertains to the crucial doctrine of judicial restraint, we are of the considered opinion that encroaching into the right of the other organ of the government would tantamount clear violation of the Rule of law which is one of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Considering the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the Accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, there is no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case 2008 (10) TMI 690 - SUPREME COURT and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement of dispute. 2. Interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Doctrine of judicial restraint in quashing criminal cases post-settlement. Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Based on Settlement of Dispute The case involved an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court quashing criminal proceedings against the Respondents under FIR No. SIA-2001-E-0006 dated 28.12.2001, registered under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court relied on a previous judgment and a settlement between the Bank and the Respondent-company to quash the proceedings. The Respondents had deposited sums as part of a settlement scheme, leading to the release of securities by the Bank and withdrawal of recovery proceedings. The Trial Court had dismissed an application for compounding of offences under Section 320(2) of the Indian Penal Code, citing non-compoundable offences. The High Court exercised its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings based on the settlement. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the compounding of offences. The Court considered precedents emphasizing that non-compoundable offences cannot be quashed indirectly when they cannot be compounded directly. It was highlighted that judicial power should not be used to direct compounding of non-compoundable offences, as expressly prohibited by the Code. The Court referred to various judgments to support the position that serious offences should not be quashed merely due to settlement to prevent abuse of the legal system and ensure justice. Issue 3: Doctrine of Judicial Restraint in Quashing Criminal Cases Post-Settlement The Court delved into the doctrine of judicial restraint concerning quashing criminal cases post-settlement. Emphasis was placed on the separation of powers and the need to respect the legislative and executive domains. The judgment highlighted that encroaching into the rights of other government organs would violate the Rule of law, a basic constitutional principle. The Court cited previous decisions to underscore the importance of judicial restraint and the potential consequences of prolonging trials post-settlement. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, keeping the point of law open but upholding the decision to quash the criminal proceedings in the given circumstances, aligning with the doctrine of judicial restraint. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlements, the interpretation of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the doctrine of judicial restraint in judicial decisions post-settlement, ensuring a balanced approach to uphold the rule of law and prevent abuse of legal processes.
|
