Twenty First Century Cedit Pvt. ... vs State (C.B.I.) & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 992 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 240/94 registered under Sections 420/511/120-B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners and others were charge sheeted under Section 420/120-B/420/511 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent No.3 filed a suit under Order 37 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner No.1 for recovery of Rs. 55,83,027.91, and the petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit for damages of Rs. 76,82,136/- against the respondents No.2 and 3. However, both the suits were disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties. As per agreement between the parties, respondent No. 2 agreed to pay to respondent No. 3 a sum of rupees 73 lakhs in full and final settlement of the claim and the respondent No. 2 undertook to withdraw the criminal case instituted against the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, seek quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground of the settlement between the parties.

3. It is significant to mentioned that the offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)/13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not compoundable. The whole scheme of compounding of the offences is dealt with and regulated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Proce-

dure. The provisions of Section 320 ibid are exhaustive i nature and sub section (9) of Section 320 is couched in a mandatory form and it lays down that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. The question is : Can a High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. convert a no compoundable offences into a compoundable offence and vice versa? The answer should be 'No'. It is now well settled that: (i) power under Section 482 can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the Section ; (ii) it cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code; and it (iii) cannot be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code. (R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Pun-

jab) Suraj Devi Vs. Pyre Lal) 1981 SC 736; Madhu Limey Vs. State of Maharashtra , Simrikhia Vs. Dolly Mukherjee ; Dharam Pal Vs. Ramshree , Marry Angles & Ors. Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and Arun Shanker Shukla Vs. State ofUP . In Arun Shankar Shukla (supra), it was held that "the expression 'abuse of the process of the law' or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Thus, Section 482 of the code confers no new powers on the High Court. It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among other purposes) to secure the ends of justice. (State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Naim ). In Ram Lal and anr. Vs. State of J.K. . It was held by the Apex Court that an offence which the law declares to be non-compoundable, even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all. This judgment has been cited with approval in the decision of the Apex Court in S.N. Mohanty & anr. Vs. State of Orissa JT 1999(3) SC 408. Thus, what is interdicted by the Legislature in direct terms cannot be obviated in any indirect manner by invoking provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In a recent decision in the case of Kamal Dhawan Vs. State and anr. Crl.M(M) 681/96 decided on 6.9.1999 I have held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to terminate the pending criminal proceedings arising out of an offence which is otherwise non compoundable on the ground of compromise or settlement between the parties. In the instant case, any order passed by the parties. In the instant case, any order passed by this Court terminating the criminal proceedings on the ground of an agreement or compromise between the parties would run in the teeth of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While dealing with this issue the Apex Court held in the case of Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India "that the order terminating the pending criminal proceedings is not supportable on the strict terms of Section 320 or 321 or 482 Cr.P.C." In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, the criminal proceeding arising out of the FIR No. 240/94 registered under Section 420/511/120-B IPC read with Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between the parties.

4. In the result the petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is dis-

missed.