Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Bombay High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceeding would cause prejudice MANU/MH/2394/2017 - (10 Oct 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sau. Pallavi and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">By the present application, the Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 prayed to quash and set aside first information report lodged by the Applicant No. 1 against applicant Nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that, Applicant No. 1 married with Applicant No. 2 on 25th March, 2014. After discharging matrimonial obligation, Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 did not adjust with each other and therefore, quarrel took place between them. The Applicant No. 1 lodged the report in the Police Station on 24th April, 2014 alleging cruelty by Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the report of Applicant No. 1, Crime No. 77/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 came to be registered. Applicant No. 1 filed proceedings before the Family Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, matter was referred for mediation/conciliation. The Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 settled their dispute before the Mediator as per the terms stated in the agreement. 
The Supreme Court in the recent judgment in case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. has laid down broad principles for the consideration of High Court to quash the First Information Report/proceedings. Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the Court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 of CrPC, is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 
In the exercise of the power under Section 482 of CrPC and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 
The present application is liable to be allowed as the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 compromised their dispute between them. Applicant No. 1 does not want to prosecute the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. There is less possibility of conviction. Continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice to the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. There is less possibility of giving evidence by the Applicant No. 1 against the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, keeping the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class is nothing but abuse of process of Court (law). 
The Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have settled their dispute before the Family Court. In view of the compromise between the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, High Court allowed the application and quashed and set aside regular criminal case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : FIR, Quashing, Discretion</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>