Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajat Johri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10518 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJAT JOHRI S/O LATE SHRI AJAI KUMAR
JOHRI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APARTMENT NO.
B 05-04 FLOOR 05 TOWER B SECTOR 60 SKYON
GOLF EXTENSION ROAD BADSHAHPUR
GURGAON, HARYANA 122101 PRESENTLY AT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HIMANSHU MIGLANI S/O SOHAN LAL MIGLANI
HOUSE NO. 371, URBAN ESTATE NEAR TAGORE
SCHOOL, SECTOR 6, KARNAL (RURAL) PART 1
HARYANA 132001 PRESENTLY AT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NEELESH DAGAR S/O YOGESH KUMAR DAGAR
R/O 260, GP A2Z BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
MODIPURAM, MEERUT, (UTTAR PRADESH)
PRESENTLY AT INDORE
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION RAJENDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT
INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SIDDHARTH SHROFF S/O SHRI NARENDRA
KUMAR SHROFF R/O 152 H, NALANDA PARISAR,
KESARBAGH ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE)
(COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO. 2 SIDDHARTH SHROFF APPEARED
IN PERSON)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
applicants for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.284/2022 at Police
Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore for offences under Section 420, 409, 406, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and also
consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 846/2022 pending before the
XXVIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Indore.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that complainant/respondent no. 2
Sidharth Shroff lodged an FIR at police station Rajendra nagar by stating that
accused/applicant Rajat Johri, Himanshu and Neelsh hatched a conspiracy and
prepared a fake letter head of company of complainant Siddharth Shroff and by
using the forged signature, they have transferred an amount of Rs. 78,76,725/-
from Amira I Grand Foods USA in their bank account by committing fraud. On
the basis of FIR offence under section 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
has been registered against the applicants at crime No. 284/2022 at police
station Rajendra Nagar Indore.
After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the
accused/applicants and later on matter was committed to the Sessions Court
and in the Court of XXVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge Indore
criminal trial is pending as ST No. 846/2022.
Subsequently on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between the
applicants and complainant/respondent no. 2 Siddharth Shroff a joint
compromise petition under section 320 of Cr.P.C. has been filed before this
Court and factum of compromise has been verified by Principal Registrar of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
this Court on 21.3.2023.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that considering the fact that
parties have arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a compromise
petition, which has been duly verified by the Registrar of this Court, the
continuance of proceeding before the Court with regard to offences under
Section 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC will amount to
sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of
the parties.
It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ State as
well as by complainant that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the
parties, pursuant to which compromise petition has also been filed by the
parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld
the quashment of noncompoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at
by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-Ã -vis continuance
of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may
amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account
the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the
compromise between the parties was arrived at between the parties, thus
continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, which
will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can
be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise
by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not against the society,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
but merely affect the victim.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment
delivered by the apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 883 . Paragraph no.49, 52, 53 and
57 of the aforesaid judgments are reads as under:-
€œ49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests,
saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it
being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words,
‘nothing in this Code’ which means that the provision is
an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that
none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power.
The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself
i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482
confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing
inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well
settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision
in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It
should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as
against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the
Code.
52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the
High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a
straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of
settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as
compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court
under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by
the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely
and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion
by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as
to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment.
57. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
complaint or F.I.R 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
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
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 pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal case would put 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
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 criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding.
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also keeping in view the
fact that parties have arrived at amicable settlement, looking to the dictum of the
apex Court in the cases of Sadhu Ram Singh (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), it
would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings in Sessions Trial
No. 846/2022 pending before the XXVIII Additional District And Sessions
Judge, Indore.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information
Report in Crime No. 284/2022, registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar
Indore, against the applicants for offences under Section 420, 409, 406, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC as well as the consequent proceedings in
Sessions Trial No. 846/2022 pending before the XXVIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Indore are hereby quashed. It is also directed that demand
draft submitted by applicants be handed over to respondent no. 2 and copy
thereof be kept in the record.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 29-03-2023
10:05:00
