9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1194 - SC - Indian LawsFIR for offences punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code - exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR - Held that - High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations of extortion, forgery, conspiracy, and criminal antecedents of the appellants. 3. The impact of an amicable settlement between the complainant and the appellants on the quashing of the FIR. 4. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The appellants sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 506(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court dismissed the application for quashing the FIR, noting the serious nature of the allegations and the criminal antecedents of the appellants. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the inherent powers under Section 482 must be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court. 2. Allegations of Extortion, Forgery, Conspiracy, and Criminal Antecedents of the Appellants: The complaint involved allegations of a conspiracy to transfer valuable land based on forged documents. The High Court noted that the appellants had a modus operandi of grabbing land through fraudulent means, including opening bogus bank accounts. The appellants' criminal antecedents further supported the decision not to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court agreed, highlighting that the case involved serious offences with societal implications, not merely a private dispute. 3. The Impact of an Amicable Settlement Between the Complainant and the Appellants on the Quashing of the FIR: The appellants argued that the dispute was essentially civil and had been amicably settled with the complainant. However, the High Court rejected this plea, stating that the charges were of a serious nature and involved extortion, forgery, and conspiracy. The Supreme Court supported this view, noting that serious offences with a societal impact cannot be quashed merely based on a settlement between the parties. 4. The Inherent Powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court reiterated that this power must be exercised with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences, especially those with societal impact, cannot be quashed even if the victim and offender have settled the dispute. The Court emphasized that economic offences and those involving public interest must be prosecuted to maintain societal order and justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the application for quashing the FIR. The Court emphasized that the allegations involved serious offences with societal implications, including extortion, forgery, and conspiracy. The inherent powers under Section 482 must be exercised to secure the ends of justice, and serious offences cannot be quashed merely based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the need to prosecute serious criminal activities to maintain societal order and justice.
|
