Smt. Sushma Ajay Singh And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra
2007 Latest Caselaw 492 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.D. Sinha, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur. In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'. Shri Vimal Chandra Grover expired on 25-10-2004. At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel. The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose between petitioners in relation to running of the said hotel business. The petitioner No. 4 lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur against petitioner No. 2 and on the basis thereof, Crime No. 3011/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against petitioner No. 2. On the very day, i.e. 21-1-2007, another report/complaint was lodged by petitioner No. 1 against petitioner No. 4 with Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur and on the basis thereof, Crime No. 33/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 506-B, 341 and 451 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against petitioner No. 4. It was contended that on 22-1-2007 petitioner No. 3 lodged a complaint with Sadar Police Station against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis thereof, Crime No. 35-2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar submitted that investigation in all these crimes is going on. It was submitted that on 23-1-2007, petitioner No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 36/2007 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the Small Cause Court, Nagpur for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner No. 1 also obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction for protecting her possession of the property.

4. It was further argued by learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar that in view of complaints and counter complaints filed by the petitioners against each other relating to immovable property in question, inference was drawn by the respondent that such disputes are likely to cause breach of peace and, therefore, proceedings are initiated by the respondent under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Executive Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Division, Nagpur, which are registered as Crime Case No. 1/2007.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that looking to the nature of disputes and unnecessarily lodging of reports/complaints against each other by the petitioners, family friends and well wishers of the petitioners persuaded the petitioners to settle their disputes. Accordingly a compromise petition was prepared and filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur. The learned Judge upon verification of contents of the compromise petition was pleased to accept the terms and conditions of the compromise and disposed of the suit in terms of the said compromise petition. It was contended that as per terms of the compromise, it was agreed between the petitioners to settle their all disputes once for all and in order to maintain cordial relations amongst them it was decided that the petitioners shall take steps to ensure that all offences and proceedings initiated and arising from complaints/counter complaints lodged by the petitioners will be withdrawn/compounded so that pendency of any criminal or other proceedings would not come in the way of maintaining good and cordial relations. It was contended that since parties have amicably decided all the disputes amongst themselves and want to have good and cordial relations in future, continuation of criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against each other would come in their way of maintaining good relations and since petitioners have already decided not to prosecute criminal proceedings against each other in the interest of the petitioners as well as in the interest of justice, all these criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. as well as decision of this Court in Jasmine Vipul Bhatia and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (3) Mah LJ 262 : 2004 Cri LJ 5060.

6. Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar and made the same request of quashing of criminal proceedings since petitioners have amicably settled disputes amongst themselves and want to have good and cordial relations in future.

7. Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, contended that crimes registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints lodged by them against each other are non-compound-able and, therefore, in view of bar of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer made by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts. it appears that dispute between the petitioners arose on account of running of the hotel business, which has resulted in lodging of reports/ complaints by the petitioners against each other and on the basis thereof, Police Station Officer, Sadar Police Station, Nagpur registered various crimes such as Grime Nos. 3011/2007, 33/2007 arid 35/2007 for the offences punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It appears that investigation in the said crimes is under-way. In the meantime, petitioner No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 36/ 2007 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the said civil suit, because of genuine efforts of the family friends and well wishers of the petitioners, the petitioners were persuaded to amicably settle their dispute.

9. In view of above referred facts, it appears that petitioners have realised futility of the criminal proceedings initiated by them against each other because of the settlement of civil dispute between them and, therefore, wanted to have good and cordial relations amongst themselves, hence filed a compromise petition before the Judge Small Cause Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 36/ 2007. After verifying the compromise petition, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court disposed of the suit in terms of the compromise petition. The term of settlement incorporated in the compromise petition, which is relevant to the issue in the present petition, is term No. 7, which is as follows:

7. It is agreed between the parties that since all the above proceedings were arising out of the dispute between the parties in respect of the suit premises, the said dispute is amicably settled between the parties and the parties have decided to maintain cordial relations. The parties shall take steps to ensure that all the aforesaid offences and the proceedings arising therefrom are withdrawn/compounded/quashed, so as to enable the parties to ensure that the pendency of the said proceedings is not coming in the way of maintaining cordial relations.

10. It is no doubt true that offences, which can be compounded, are mentioned in Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the offences, which are not mentioned therein, cannot be permitted to be compounded. However, in the instant case, the petitioners are not seeking compounding of offences and have approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of first information reports/complaints filed by the petitioners against each other as well as proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure before Special Executive Magistrate and, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi AIR 2003 SC 1386 (cited supra), this Court, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, is entitled to quash the complaints/first information reports and Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code does not come in the way of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing first information reports as well as proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to meet the ends of justice. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in para (8) read thus:

8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

Similarly, in para (11) of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and others : (cited supra), the Apex Court has observed thus:

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where in the opinion of the Court, chance of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings.

The Apex Court, therefore, concluded the issue by recording its finding in para (15) of the judgment, which reads thus;

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

11. This Court after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi : (cited supra) quashed the prosecution to meet the ends of justice in the case of Jasmine Vipul Bhatia and others (cited supra).

12. In the case in hand, relations between the petitioners were strained because of civil disputes pertaining to land in question as well as running of business of hotel and, therefore, petitioners have lodged the reports/complaints against each other in the Police Station. However, since the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes and also agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings initiated by them against each other in order to have good and cordial relations in future, it would be futile to continue the criminal proceedings, which will only destroy the peace and harmony amongst the petitioners. Since petitioners have decided not to prosecute the criminal proceedings, chances of ultimate conviction in those proceedings are very bleak and remote and, therefore, in our considered view, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

13. It is no doubt true that so far as quashing of complaint/first information report is concerned, normally the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be invoked. However, in the case in hand, apart from the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against each other for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against the petitioners before the Special Executive Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of these criminal proceedings. It is well settled that jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is unfettered and depending upon facts and circumstances of each case and to secure ends of justice, same can be exercised in the larger public interest. At the same time, care needs to be taken that if there is an alternate efficacious and effective remedy available in law, this Court should be slow in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We want to express that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised with great care and caution and only in exceptional situation where this Court, with reasonable certainty, can come to the conclusion that in any eventuality, chances of ultimate conviction are not even remote. The decision rendered by us in the present criminal writ petition is purely based on facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of settlement of civil dispute, which was the main reason for initiating criminal proceedings by the petitioners against each other as well as in view of agreement arrived at between the petitioners not to protest criminal proceedings initiated against each other. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it would be futile to continue such criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against each other where chances of ultimate conviction are not even remote and, therefore, under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against each other are liable to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

14. So far as proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure initiated before the Special Executive Magistrate are concerned, it is necessary to observe that the object of this provision is merely to prevent a breach of the peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, which the Court finds they had immediately before the dispute, until the actual right of one of the parties has been determined by a Civil Court. The action requires to be taken under this provision is not punitive, but preventive and is provisional in nature only till such time formal adjudication on the rights of the parties is made by the competent Civil Court. Looking to the scheme of this Section, it is evident that existence of dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace is a condition lying at the root of the powers conferred. In the instant case, since the petitioners have amicably settled their civil disputes and decided and agreed not to pursue prosecution initiated by them against each other in order to have good and cordial relations in future, the question of likelihood of breach of peace does not arise and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served if the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are continued.

15. For the reasons stated hereinabove as well as in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (cited supra), the criminal proceedings initiated 6n the basis of Crime Nos. 3011 /2007, 33/2007 and 35/2007 are quashed and set aside. Similarly, proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Executive Magistrate vide Crime Case No. 1/2007 are also quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.