CASES:

• Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi

In order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 of the CrPC, the following questions have to be analyzed by the High Court:

1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution / complainant; and / or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution / complainant?
4. Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the questions is in affirmative, the Court should quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC.

• Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (4 Oct, 2017)

In this case, the Supreme Court referred to various precedents and summarised the following principles which ought to govern the power of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC

1. Section 482 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.
2. 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 320of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised:
(a). To secure the ends of justice.
(b). To prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
5.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.
6.In the exercise of the power under section 482 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, truly speaking, 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.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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; and.
10.There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and above. 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."

• Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H Chanchani (13.08.1998)
• 1.It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised.
• 2.Bearing in mind the parameters laid down by this Court in several decisions for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, we have examined the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant and the two other witnesses made on oath before the Magistrate.
• 3.We are clearly of the opinion that the necessary ingredients of any of the offence have not been made out so far as the appellants are concerned. The petition of complaint is a vague one and excepting the bald allegation that the shares of the complainant have been transferred on the forged signatures, nothing further has been stated and there is not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these appellants are involved in the so-called allegation of forgery.
• 4.The statement of the complainant on oath as well as his witnesses do not improve the position in any manner, and therefore, in our considered opinion even if the allegations made in the complaint petition and the statement of complainant and his witnesses are taken on their face value, the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out.
• 5.This being the position the impugned order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.2.1996 so far as it relates the appellants are concerned cannot be sustained and the High Court also committed error in not invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 5.2.1996 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand quashed.

Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani vs Prafulla Kumar Mishra And Anr. on 21 March, 20065
1. In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding, instituted in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P) at Uditnagar.
2. Learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party submitted that the accused persons including the petitioner for the purpose of cheating forged the bills. So they would be liable for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C. Whoever makes any false document with intent to cause injury or damage to any person is said to have committed forgery.
3. In the case at hand as per the complaint petition bills were raised against the complainant even during the period while the mobile set of the complaint was there with accused No. 5. Taking the fact of the case into consideration, it cannot be prima facie held that the accused forged the bills with intention to cheat the complainant. So the offence under Section 468 of I.P.C. cannot be attracted to any of the accused persons.
4. The Apex Court stated that, There is nothing in the complaint petition ; that any of the accused persons destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified any book, paper or account belonging to or in possession of his employer.
5. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that no prima facie case is made out against any of the accused persons for any of the offences under Sections 199/406/409/418/420/427/468/477-A I.P.C. and as such the order of taking cognizance dated 19.4.2005 by the Court below and for that matter the entire criminal proceeding in I.C.C. No. 226 of 2004 deserves to be quashed.
6. In the result, the CRLMC is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the order of taking cognizance dated 19.4.2005 in I.C.C. of the Court below is hereby quashed.

REFERENCES:

• https://www.casemine.com/
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.scconline.com/
• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/
• https://www.legitquest.com/

" Author Adv. Saloni Singh - 25-04-2024 "