The
High Court of Kerala while quashing prosecution proceedings in a case1
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, has followed and applied the dictum laid down
in Gold
Quest International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
reported in 2014(2) KLD 738 (SC), that
in cases which are substantially of civil disputes though with criminal facets,
if the parties had entered into settlement and it has become clear that there
are no chance of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. But that however such an approach may not apply where
the nature of the offence is very serious like those involving offences like
rape murder robbery dacoity and cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
under the NDPS Act etc. in which punishment of life imprisonment or death can
be awarded.
These
observations were made by Justice Alexander Thomas while His Lordship was
considering a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed seeking invocation of the High
Court’s inherent powers conferred as per Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash all
further proceedings in Calendar Case, C.C.No.1095/2009 pending on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam. The said Calendar
Case arose out of the Crime No.108/2007 of Ernakulam Town Police Station which
was one registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC against
the petitioners who were the two accused therein.
The
allegations against the accused (petitioners) in a nutshell was that the
accused had auctioned chitty from Kizhakkemudom Chits and Finance Investments
and later did not remit the subscription and the 2nd accused stood
as guarantor and cheated the de-facto complainant's chit company and thereby committed
the above said offences. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent
in his in his capacity as the power-of-attorney holder of the chit company. It
was submitted by the petitioners that after investigation, the Police filed
final report/charge sheet, which has led to the institution of C.C.No. 1095/2009
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- I, Ernakulam. The
petitioners also stated that now the entire disputes between the petitioners
(accused) and the 2nd respondent (de-facto complainant) have been settled out
of court. Therefore, it was submitted that even if the prosecution is allowed
to proceed, it would not serve any purpose. It was in the conspectus of these
facts and circumstances that the petitioners had approached the High Court of
Kerala under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
The
2nd respondent (defacto complainant) had sworn to affidavit dated 4th
September, 2014 (produced as Annexure-III in the Crl.M.C. filed by the
petitioners), wherein it was stated that the chit company/firm has no further
grievances in the matter and the money owed to him has been fully settled and
that the power-of-attorney has authorized the 2nd respondent to
collect the amount for and on behalf of the chit company from the petitioners
(accused) and that the 2nd respondent has received the said money
due from the petitioners (accused) and that there exists no grievance as far as
the 2nd respondent or his chit company is concerned. Accordingly, it
was submitted that the 2nd respondent does not want to continue the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners in the instant crime as the entire disputes
have been settled between them and they are now in cordial relationship and the
pendency of the case would adversely affect their relationship, etc.
It
was in this factual context that the prosecution proceedings were quashed by
Justice Alexander Thomas after referring to, and relying on the dictum laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. V State
of Tamil Nadu and Others (supra).
In the said decision, the appellant
company therein had over 60,000 members as consumers in and around Chennai city
alone and a complaint was made in 2003 by the private respondent therein
against the appellant company alleging non-compliance of the issuance of
numismatic gold coin on receipt of Rs.16,800/- from the wife of that party
respondent and as per the promise made by the appellant company. Some other
customers also had complaints on the basis of which the police registered a
case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Secs. 4, 5 and 6 of the
Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 and the appellant company
filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court for quashing of the impugned
FIR therein and since all the claimants including the complainant settled the
dispute with the appellant company and entered into an agreement, the learned
Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the FIR and allowed the Writ
Petition. However the state challenged the order of the learned Single Judge which
quashed the impugned FIR and the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed
by the State and directed the police authority to investigate the crime.
Aggrieved by this, the company had taken upthe mat ter in Supreme Court in
Appeal. After referring to a catena of rulings of the Apex Court as in B.S
Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2003(4) SCC 675,
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in
2008(9) SCC 677, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2012(10) SCC 603 and
other cases, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that in cases which are
substantially of civil disputes though with criminal facets, if the parties had
entered into settlement and it has become clear that there are no chance of
conviction, there is no illegality quashing the proceedings under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
But that however such an approach may not apply where the nature of the offence
is very serious like those involving offences like rape murder robbery dacoity
and cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, under the NDPS Act etc. in
which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be awarded. In this view of
the matter, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
upheld the quashment of the FIR for offences under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Applying
the law laid down in the case of Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. V State
of Tamil Nadu and Others (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the
case at hand, Justice Alexander Thomas held : “This Court is of the considered opinion that the continuance of the
prosecution is unwarranted and that the prayer of the petitioners could be
allowed in the light of the aforementioned rulings in the Supreme Court as in
Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in
2014 (2) KLD 738 (SC). In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the charge sheet filed by the Police and all
further proceedings in C.C. No. 1095/2009 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate's Court- I, Ernakulam.
_________________
1.
Crl. M.C. No. 5164 of 2014 decided on 28.11.2014
