Quess Corp Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5195 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                            NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 CRMP No. 941 of 2022
     • Quess Corp Limited Through Suryakant Tiwari (Assistant
       Manager) R/o Office At 3/3/2, Bellandur Gate, Sarjapur Main
       Road, Bangalore 560103.
                                                                      ---- Petitioner
                                       Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kanker,
        District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
     2. Ghanshyam Banarasi S/o Rajesh Kumar Banarasi Aged About
        28 Years R/o Minimata Chouk Bhatheli Ward 12, Bhakhara,
        Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 493770.
                                                                 ---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2. : Shri Kunal Das, Advocate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board 17.8.2022.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') praying for quashment of FIR No.205/2021 registered at Police Station Kanker Distt. Kanker for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.2/accused.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant/petitioner, who is Assistant Manager of the Quess Corp Limited, lodged FIR bearing Crime No.205/2021 at Police Station Kanker Distt. Kanker against respondent No.2 alleging therein that their company had made an agreement for providing manpower services to the Axis Bank Limited and pursuant to that agreement, respondent No.2 was deployed with Axis Bank Ltd. as Senior Sales (Grade-E3) in the Agri & Rural Banking Micro

Finance Department at Kanker and respondent No.2 being Collection Executive, collected the amount of EMI to the tune of Rs.2,11,181/- from various customers of aforesaid bank and embezzled/misappropriate the same. Based on the above facts, aforesaid crime was registered against respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 409 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 would submit that after lodging of FIR, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and respondent No.2/accused has deposited aforesaid embezzled amount. Therefore, on the basis of that settlement, the petitioner has filed present petition for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.205/2021 registered at Police Station Kanker Distt. Kanker on the strength of settlement arrived at between the parties. He would further submit that statement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have also been recorded before Registrar (Judicial) with regard to settlement arrived at between them. Therefore, it is prayed that aforesaid FIR may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, suitable order may be passed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 extended his support to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Pursuant to order dated 20.7.2022 of this Court, statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded by Registrar (Judicial), in which they have stated that they have settled their dispute amicably. The petitioner/ complainant has also deposed that the alleged amount of embezzlement has been deposited by respondent No.2/accused, which has been collected by him and due to settlement arrived at between them, he does not want any action to be taken in the

FIR No.205/2021 registered at Police Station Kanker, Distt. Kanker against respondent No.2. He has also deposed in his statement that he has voluntarily made statements and same has been executed without any fear, pressure or inducement.

9. In case of Dimpey Gujral -v- Union Territory and others [(2013) 11 SCC 497], para 6, 7 and 8 of which are relevant and reproduced below :-

"6. The question which now remains to be answered is whether since one of the offences alleged in the FIR is non-compoundable, the FIR could be quashed.

7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non-compoundable. A two-Judge Bench [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] of this Court doubted the correctness of those decisions. The learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this Court had permitted compounding of non- compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger Bench. The larger Bench in Gian Singh (supra) considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this Court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,

etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this Court in Gian Singh (supra), we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are

offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26-10-2006 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed."

10. In the case of State of M.P. -v- Laxmi Narayan and ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688], Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the law of quashing of FIR, para 15.1 and 15.5 are relevant here which read thus :-

"15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

11. In the instant case, FIR has been lodged against respondent No.2/accused for the offence under Section 409 IPC which is non-compoundable, but considering the facts and nature of dispute, which contains civil flavour and also considering the fact that no other criminal antecedent has been shown against respondent No.2 and he has returned the whole amount, in view

of the dictum given by the Apex Court, the alleged offence can be quashed with the leave of this Court.

12. In view of the above legal proposition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they do not want to continue with the criminal case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court to form an opinion to quash the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2/accused. Further, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings will be nothing, but abuse of process of law.

13. Consequently, FIR No.205/2021 registered at Police Station Kanker Distt. Kanker for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC against respondent No.2/accused deserves to be and is hereby quashed.

14. In view of the above, present petition is allowed.

15. No cost.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE

Bini