section 482 crpc

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Hari Pal Verma, J. quashed the criminal proceeding as there was a compromise signed between the parties.

A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

The records of the case are such that the parties appeared before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in which it was submitted that compromise was effected between the parties voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. The complainant/respondent made a joint statement in which she had made the statement regarding the compromise between the two.

Gaganpreet Kaur, counsel for State had not disputed the fact of the compromise between the parties.

The Court thus opined that no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial court. The Court reiterated the case of Gold Quest International (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 206, in which the Supreme Court held that “disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution.” Thus, all the proceeding was quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties.[Pankaj v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1112, decided on 04-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Mishra J., allowed a criminal miscellaneous appeal to quash an on-going proceeding and also a cognizance order dated 07-02-2011 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the ground of settlement reached between the parties.

In the instant case, the petitioner, husband and the opposite party 2, the wife, had settled their marital dispute and had reached a divorce. However, the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, on finding sufficient grounds had taken cognizance of the matter on police report under Sections 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and  406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) of the Penal Code, 1860. The parties thereafter reached a settlement and approached the High Court under Section 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the criminal proceedings and the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate.

The Learned Additional Government advocate representing the opposite party 1, S. Pattnaik did not dispute the fact of settlement between the parties. The Learned advocate also brought to the High Court’s notice the joint memorandum filed in the Family Court, Srikakulam, that the wife should take necessary steps to withdraw the Criminal Case in order to maintain amity.

Counsel representing the petitioner, Samir Ku. Mishra agreed to the fact of settlement between the parties.

The High Court, felt justified to quash the criminal proceeding and the impugned judgment to prevent oppression and prejudice. The Court also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and quoted “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.” The Supreme Court laid down that the serious offences under criminal cases shall be distinguished from criminal cases having an “overwhelming or predominant element of civil dispute” and in such cases, the High Court shall be able to exercise power under Section 482 CrPC.

Thus, in the present case the High Court reiterated the position and stated that noting the gravity of the offence having a civil element, the Court exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC.[Ashish Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 222, decided on 02-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of cognizance taken against petitioner, in a case pertaining to demand of dowry and torture therefor.

Petitioner, along with eight others, was charged with offence of torture, assault, demand of dowry and conspiracy to kill the opposite party 2 (daughter-in-law of the petitioner herein). In a complaint case filed by opposite party 2, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed an order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved thereby, the instant application was filed praying for quashing of the said order.   

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Ojha, contended that the opposite party 2 did not reside in the matrimonial home and she had got divorced from the petitioner’s son in 2011.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jharkhandi Upadhyay contended that the matrimonial case wherein divorce was granted to opposite party 2, was filed in the year 2010 while the complaint case in question was filed in 2004. Thus, the opposite party 2 was still the petitioner’s daughter-in-law when the complaint case was filed. Hence, the petitioner’s main contention of divorce was of no relevance. Further, the cognizance order in complaint case, was passed in the year 2003, i.e., ten and a half years ago, which made the application unfit for consideration. 

The Court noted that the complaint case was of the year 2004 and the order of cognizance was also of the same year. Thus, the present application, filed in the year 2015, challenging cognizance order of the year 2004 was clearly unfit to be entertained on the ground of gross delay and laches. Further, the main contention of the petitioner that her son and opposite party  2, were already divorced, was of no consequence, as the matrimonial case (for divorce) was filed in the year 2010 by opposite party 2; and that itself was proof of the fact that she was tortured in the matrimonial home. 

In view of the above, it was held that the cognizance order did not suffer from any infirmity, and it did not warrant any interference by the Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.[Sushila Devi v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 653, decided on 13-05-2019] 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Daya Chaudhary & Sudhir Mittal, JJ. allowed the application for the enhancement of compensation to minor rape victim under Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017.

An application for enhancement of compensation was made in this case which was awarded by Sessions Judge.

The victim child was awarded compensation of Rs 6000 out of the amount of fine. The appeal was filed for enhancement of compensation which was earlier admitted. Victim (minor) through her natural guardian and mother also filed an application under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 357-A CrPC seeking recommendation to Respondent 2 i.e. District Legal Services Authority to grant compensation to her under the Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 framed under Section 357-A of CrPC.

Ravinder Kaur Manaise, Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant-victim was five years of age at the time of occurrence and suffered injury. It was submitted that for her physical and mental rehabilitation adequate compensation is required to be awarded to her as per Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017.

H.S. Sullar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent contended that the amount of compensation can be recovered from the accused, later on as he was in custody.

The Court referred to the Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme and noted the relevant clause of the said scheme as “the applicant is entitled to compensation, which is to be disbursed through the Bank account of the victim or through a designated person to be nominated by the Punjab Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority as the case may be. The compensation is required to be paid in lump sum or in two installments as decided by the Punjab Legal Services Authority or District Legal Services Authority.” Regarding the amount of the compensation it was directed that “in case victim is less than 14 years of age, the amount of compensation is to be increased by 50% over the amount specified in the schedule, meaning, thereby, she is entitled to Rs 4,50,000.”  Thus, the petition was allowed and respondents were directed to grant the compensation to minor as per Punjab Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017. It was further directed that the Punjab State Legal Services Authority was at liberty to recover the amount so paid to the victim from the accused. [‘X’ v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1026, decided on 22-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. disposed of the petition on the ground that no substantial ground was made for exercising the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

A petition was filed in order to quash the summoning order passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Rajendra Prasad, counsel for the petitioner submits that First Information Report had been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of false and fabricated facts. It was also submitted that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the court below and some protection may be granted to him.

The Additional Government Advocate had opposed the petition. It was discussed that the  power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. It was reiterated that according to the precedents the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not preempt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of the trial before the courts below.

Case of  Lee Kun Hee v. State of U.P., JT 2012 (2) SC 237, was brought in light,  in which it was held that “Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing an obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest”

High Court after perusal of matter on record opined it cannot be said that a cognizable offence was not made out and thus there was no sufficient ground to quash the impugned proceedings, although it was directed that if the petitioner surrenders before the court within ten days with an application for bail the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the law.[Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P, 2019 SCC OnLine All 2299, decided on 01-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of T.V. Nalawade and K.K. Sonawane, JJ. refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in favour of the petitioners, even though the parties had resolved the dispute amicably in between them.

The petitioners were booked for various offences including Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), etc. read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioners preferred the present petition to quash the criminal proceedings in the case registered against them, on the ground that the dispute had been settled amicably between the petitioners and the complainant.

The High Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were serious and heinous in nature. The petitioners attacked the complainant with lethal weapons like sword, knife, iron rod, etc. and inflicted fatal injuries on the vital part of the body. It was observed that the offences under Sections 307 and 326 are held serious and heinous offences in the eye of law, which would cause social impact. It is a rule of law that while dealing with the application to compound the offences, on the ground of compromise, it is essential to take into consideration the distinction between the personal and private offences and its impact on the society at large.

Referring to a plethora of judicial precedents on the subject, the Court reached the conclusion that the petition needs to be dismissed. It was held: “The gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioners do not persuade ourselves to quash the proceeding in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. As referred above, offences under Sections 307 and 326 are non-compoundable offences. While committing offences, the petitioners/accused used lethal weapons like sword/knife, iron rod etc.  Pending investigation, the petitioners anyhow managed to enter into the compromise with the complainant but it would not sub-serve the purpose. In case compromise is accepted , it may result in cynical disregard of law, which would have serious impact on the society at large and the people may lose faith in the justice delivery system. In such circumstances, the very purpose and object of legislation about deterrent punishment would be frustrated.”

In such view of the matter, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the prosecution to proceed further with criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners. [Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1039, decided on 13-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: N.S. Dhanik, J. contemplated a criminal application for quashing of the FIR filed against the applicant-husband by his wife for alleged cruelty and criminal intimidation under the relevant sections of IPC.

The respondent had filed an FIR against the applicant and his relatives for harassing and treating her with cruelty for an alleged dowry to an extent that the respondent had to leave her matrimonial house and reside somewhere else. On the impugned FIR the police conducted an investigation and thereafter filed a charge-sheet against the applicant. Applicant was duly summoned by the Magistrate. Charges against the applicant were under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC.

Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was a matrimonial dispute and was a private affair between the husband and wife but due to certain misunderstandings the FIR was registered, hence for the betterment of the institution of marriage the Court must quash the proceedings against the applicant.

The Court thus stated that it was settled law that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and this power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate trial and in cases where facts are hazy. Court doesn’t find reason to interfere in the proceedings against the applicant. However, it directed that if the accused-applicant surrendered him before the Magistrate concerned, his bail application was to be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible.[Ramesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 505, decided on 17-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The instant petition was entertained by Ravindra Maithani, J. where the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC applied for quashing of the chargesheet and impugned cognizance order for offence under Section 420 IPC, which was pending before Civil Judge. 

Petitioner had stated that an FIR was lodged in 2016 against him, where the petitioner was accused of cheating 52 students. In the FIR it was stated that, the petitioner took the educational documents, photos, identity card as well as income certificate of all those students and got them admitted in more than one colleges and thereby received the scholarship. In the FIR name of 41 such students have been mentioned. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer found the allegations levelled in the FIR as true.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were not believable; It was categorically averred that one person cannot do such an act on his own; what was requested was that direction may be issued that bail application of the petitioner may be considered on the same day when it was presented before the court. 

The Court observed that the petitioner had filed the present application under Section 482, material that was also available at this stage before the Court was an FIR, which definitely discloses the commission of cognizable offence and a charge sheet, which stated that in fact, the offence as alleged in the FIR has been proved. In the absence of any other material, the Court didn’t presume that the story was not believable. Investigating Officer had found that the offence was committed. Therefore, there was no reason to make any interference and the petition deserved to be dismissed.[Chandra Kiran v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 506, decided on 29-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. allowed the petition filed by the husband and directed the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to stop all the proceedings against him under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860.

In the present case, the petitioner and the first respondent were in love with each other and petitioner had promised to marry her. Respondent had sexual intercourse with the petitioner on the basis of the promise of marriage. When the petitioner took her to the house of his relatives, they threatened her. Apprehending that they would harm her she escaped and reported the matter to police and charges under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 were set against him. After a short time span, both petitioner and respondent solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Petitioner sought to set aside the proceedings against him by invoking power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The main question to be considered by the Court was whether the marriage between the accused and the victim can be considered as a sufficient ground to quash the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.

The respondent submitted that she had no grievance against the petitioner and no objection in setting aside the proceeding against him. In the affidavit filed by the respondent she had stated that she was forced to sign the first information statement at the instance of her mother and other relatives and that she had no intention to implicate the petitioner in a case of rape.

The Court placed relevance on Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 509 where the principle was laid that if it was found that from the inception the accused had promised the prosecutrix to marry her without any intention to marry and the consent for sexual intercourse was based on such promise then such consent could be said to be obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 of IPC. It was also acknowledged that consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and it must be carefully examined that whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had made a false promise of marriage only to satisfy his lust.

It was noted that in the present case, the petitioner had no fraudulent intention in promising marriage to the respondent. The promise made by him was not a false promise made only with the intention to satisfy his lust. This was evident from the fact that he married the victim lady within a short period after the incident.

Considering all the facts and circumstances it was a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and proceedings against petitioner were set aside.[Denu P. Thampi v. X, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1639, decided on 27-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J. allowed a writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against rape accused who later on married the victim.

In the instant case, the petitioner (‘accused’ before the trial court) was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 366A, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The counsels for the petitioner, C.S. Manu and S.K. Premraj, contended before the High Court that the petitioner had settled the disputes amicably with the respondent (‘victim’ before the trial court) by solemnizing marriage with her as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and they had a daughter aged four months out of the wedlock. The petitioner also produced a Marriage Certificate issued by the statutory Marriage Officer.

Anoop Joseph, counsel appearing for the respondent also pointed out that, since the respondent had already married the petitioner, it would be in her interest that the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed; otherwise her marital life would be put into jeopardy, and there would be no one to take care of her as well as her young child hardly aged 4 months.

The Court observed that, though the grave and serious offences as the one under Section 376 of the Penal Code could not be the subject matter for quashing on the ground of settlement between the accused and the victim; but relying on its judgment in Freddy @ Antony Francis v. State of Kerala, 2018 (1) KLD 558, it held that “the exception to the above approach could be in cases where the accused has married the defacto complainant and they have decided to settle all the disputes and for the predominant purpose of the welfare of the de-facto complainant/ victim, to ensure her better future life, it is only just and proper that this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could quash the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties in cases where the accused has married the defacto complainant and the de-facto complainant is insisting for quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings, etc.”

In the light of the above, more particularly in the light of the submission made by the respondent, the Court allowed the plea for quashing of impugned criminal proceedings.[Ashiq N.A. v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1731, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed a hotel owner’s petition assailing dismissal of the application for his discharge, holding that since couples were found in semi-naked condition in hotel rooms adjacent to petitioner’s room, it was a matter requiring a complete trial.

A case of immoral trafficking was registered against the petitioner, pursuant to which he filed an application for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application was rejected by the Magistrate. Hence, the instant petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Shri Prakash Srivastava, submitted that as per Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 only a special police officer is empowered to search without a warrant. Since the raid at petitioner’s hotel was not conducted by a special police officer, the whole search was vitiated in law and no criminal prosecution based on the same was permissible. Further, no medical examination was done on the couples produced before the Magistrate to establish any scientific evidence relating to there being immoral trafficking.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr Pramod Kumar, submitted that the raid was conducted in presence of Additional/Assistant Superintendent of Police who is notified as a ‘special police officer’ under the Act. Further, Section 15(5-A) of the Act provides for examination by a registered medical practitioner only for the purposes of determination of age, or detection of any injuries. Lastly, the petitioner, being the owner, was in the room adjacent to rooms where couples were recovered in semi-naked condition and, thus, he could not take the plea of innocence or ignorance.

The Court opined that no legal provision had been violated. Petitioner being the owner of hotel, and being present in the room adjacent to rooms from where couples were found in semi-naked condition, at this stage, could not be said to be innocent. Thus, the petition was dismissed holding that a full-fledged trial was required in the matter.[Sudhir Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 289, Order dated 06-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: R.K. Gauba, J. laid down guidelines for the criminal courts and mediation centers to be followed while dealing with the criminal cases that are to be or which have been referred for mediation.

The High Court was considering petitions under Section 482 CrPC concerning cases of serious nature, sought to be quashed on the premise of “settlement” of the dispute entered into between the parties. The question that arose was: whether the process of mediation, particularly one under the aegis of the court, should be permitted or encouraged to be availed of for bringing about such settlement as may possibly not to be taken by the court to be just or sufficient reason for such intervention, this having regard to the nature of the crime involved?

There were five criminal cases before the Court in the present petitions. Four of them related to credit card frauds and the last one was a case of obscene calls and IT offences. Denouncing the manner in which these cases were dealt with by the lower courts and mediation authorities in registering settlements between the parties in such serious offences, the Court went on to lay guidelines for the criminal courts and mediation authorities to be followed in such cases.

The Guidelines

(i) The court while considering reference of the parties to a criminal case to the mediation must before even ascertaining as to whether elements of settlement exist first examine, by preliminary scrutiny, the permissibility in law for the criminal action to be brought to an end either because the offence involved is compoundable or because the High Court would have no inhibition to quash it, bearing in mind the broad principles that govern the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

(ii) The mediator (before commencing mediation) must undertake preliminary scrutiny of the facts of the criminal case and satisfy himself as to the possibility of assisting the parties to such a settlement as would be acceptable to the court, bearing in mind the law governing the compounding of the offences or exercise of power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. For this, an institutional mechanism has to be created in the mediation centers so that there is consistency and uniformity in approach. The scrutiny in above nature would also need to be undertaken, as the mediation process continues, should any such criminal case, as mentioned above, be brought on the table by the parties (for being included in the settlement), as takes it beyond the case initially referred.

(iii) The system of vetting, at the conclusion of the mediation process, needs to be institutionalised so that before a settlement vis-a-vis a criminal case is formally executed by the parties, satisfaction is reached that the criminal charge involved is one which is either compoundable or one respecting which there would  be no inhibition felt by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, bearing in mind the relevant jurisprudence.

The Court added that the above guidelines will apply mutatis mutandis to other ADR methods. It was expected that the criminal courts and mediation centers shall abide by the above guidelines.

Present petitions

As far as the present petitions were concerned, the Court was of the view of that the four cases of credit card frauds have a serious adverse impact on the financial and economic well-being of the State and its banking institutions. The gravity and seriousness of the offences, the conduct of the accused persons and the impact on society were good reasons to reject the settlement as ill-conceived and unworthy. The fifth case involving pornographic and obscene call offences under IT Act similarly was a case involving mental depravity and could not be quashed on the basis of a settlement. Accordingly, all five petitions filed before the Court were dismissed.

Other concerns

— The criminal court is not a room with a revolving door where the accused can enter into or exit from at his own whims or fancies. The Judge presiding over a criminal trial must keep everyone in discipline, particularly in the matter of appearance in time.

— There can be a denial of the ground reality that in the criminal law process of this country, protracted trials have become the rule and expedition is an exception. There seems to be no system, check or discipline, or accountability, on the part of the defence counsel.

— This Court has been laying emphasis from time to time on timely conclusion of old cases in a time bound manner. But, treating serious fraud cases as one meant for recovery through the process of mediation is no answer to the challenge of huge pendency of old cases in the criminal jurisdiction.

— There is a need for the creation of additional criminal courts so that each such court carries only such optimum number of cases as can be expeditiously moved through the procedure to a conclusion. But, such endeavour would depend on infrastructural support from other agencies of the State.

Noting such concerns, the Court requested the Chief Justice have the above issues examined on the administrative side for such directions to be issued and such steps to be undertaken as may be deemed proper.

Instructions were issued in regard to the credit card fraud cases. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to take up the matter on a day-to-day basis and reach a conclusion preferably within 6 months of the receipt of the present order. The progress of the case was directed to be periodically monitored by the Sessions Judge. [Yashpal Chaudharani v. State (NCT of Delhi, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179, dated 22-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Bench of R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. quashed criminal proceedings against a person accused of cheating a bank holding that the case against him would be an abuse of process of the Court.

Petitioner herein was a customer of Bank of Baroda for many years. He introduced accused’s 1 to 3 to the said bank to enable them to open an account therein. Subsequently, the accused used credit/purchase facility given to them by the bank and obtained approximately Rs 1 crore from it. It was alleged that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to cheat the bank and cause loss to it. A case was registered against the accused and the petitioner under Section 120B, and Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The instant petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting quashing of proceedings against petitioner.

The Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he introduced accused to the bank to enable them to open an account. He did not falsely misrepresent the bank; there was no material indicating any transaction between the petitioner and other accused. No material was produced by the prosecution to prove that the introduction of accused to the bank, by the petitioner, was part of a conspiracy to cheat the bank. Therefore, no question of dishonest misappropriation of any amount by him arose.

It was held that it is a normal banking practice that a person who wants to open an account in a bank will have to get himself introduced by another account holder in the same bank. The mere act of introducing a person to a bank to enable such person to open an account in the bank, without anything more, does not attract the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC against the person who makes the introduction, even when the person introduced by him subsequently commits an act of cheating against the bank. Reliance in this regard was placed on Manoranjan Das v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 90.

In view of the above, the petition was allowed. [K.J. Hubert v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1122, Order dated 04-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J. allowed a petition for quashing an FIR filed under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom.

The quashing of FIR was sought on the basis of mediated settlement reached at between the parties. The complainant was present in the Court and she was identified by the Assistant Sub-Inspector on the basis of her identity proof. She submitted that the dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved vide mediated settlement dated 20-3-2018 and the terms thereof had been fully acted upon. She affirmed the contents of her affidavit filed in support of the present petition and submitted that now no dispute with the petitioners survive and therefore, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 wherein the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIRs/complainants were reiterated. Allowing the petition, the Court stated, “Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.” The petitioners were directed to deposit costs of Rs 25,000 with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. [Vipin Mittal v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7635, decided on 15-3-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. disposed of a compounding application in favour of the parties as they had amicably settled the dispute by entering into a compromise.

In the pertinent case, an FIR was lodged by the respondents under Sections 420 and 468 IPC on 05-01-2019. Later a compounding application duly supported by affidavits was filed stating that they have buried their differences and settled the dispute amicably outside the Court by entering into a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the same is continued. They further relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 which has considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings. Moreover, it was contended that the offence involved in the case is of a personal nature and is not an offence against the society and is not heinous offence showing extreme depravity.

The Court opined that “the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, which would tantamount to abuse of process of law.”And thereby, allowed the application. [Shiv Shankar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 91, Order dated 15-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the parties had settled the dispute between themselves.

The counsels for the parties submitted that parties had buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would have been served if the criminal case was to be continued.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 which had considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender, who had settled his dispute with the victim of the crime in a case, where crime is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. The Court held that in view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the applicants and the possibility of a conviction being remote and bleak, the FIR shall be quashed. [Abdul Rahman v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 87, Order dated 18-02-2019]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: S. Talapatra, J., relying on the Supreme Court decision in Azghar Khan v. State of U.P., 1981 Supp SCC 78, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge.

Genesis of the grievance was noted in a complaint filed by petitioner alleging that respondent stole the cheque in controversy which was dishonoured in due course. A case was registered and after investigation, the police submitted the report of terminating the investigation as there was no foundation for allegations made in the complaint. Petitioner challenged the report by filing a protest petition but Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused to direct further investigation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge observing that there was no ground to interfere in the report. This order was challenged in the present revision petition under Section 482 CrPC.

At the outset, the High Court observed, “By all traits, this is a second revision petition. On the face of it, it is barred by sub-section (3) of Section 397 CrPC.” Reliance was placed on Azghar Khan case which laid down that a second revision petition would not be competent in view of Section 397(3). Moreover, the High Court did not find any failure of justice which could persuade it to interfere in the matter. [Bikash Chandra v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 40, dated 01-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: R.K. Gauba, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of Sessions Court whereby proceedings in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were stayed.

Petitioner had filed a case against respondents alleging commission of an offence under Section 138. It was alleged that he had advanced a loan to the respondents, for the repayment of which, the respondents had issued a cheque in his favour drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. However, on presenting the cheque, it was returned unpaid with remarks “payment stopped by drawer.” After a preliminary enquiry, Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to respondents. Thereafter the respondents reached the Sessions Court which granted a stay on summons order till final decision in another case arising out of an FIR filed by respondents against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

The High Court noted that in the FIR filed, respondents alleged that the cheque in question was stolen and misappropriated by the petitioner. It was also noted that revisional court stayed the proceedings under Section 138 on the ground that the same would unnecessarily prejudice the trial in the case arising out of the FIR. The High Court held this to be totally unjust and unfair. It was stated “Though questions would arise in the criminal case under Section 138 NI Act as to whether cheque in question had come in the hands of the petitioner legitimately or not, the contentions of the respondents are a matter of defence which will have to be raised by them, the burden of proof of the requisite facts in such regard being placed on them. There is no reason why the case arising out of above-mentioned FIR should have primacy or priority over the case of the petitioner against the opposite party.” The petition was thus allowed and the impugned stay order was allowed. [Mukesh Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6843, decided on 28-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a husband’s petition filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate as confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was directed to pay interim maintenance allowance of Rs 3500 to his wife and Rs 2000 for his minor daughter.

The parties were married to each other and a daughter was born to them from the wedlock. On account of certain circumstances, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughter. Subsequently, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On her application, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the husband to pay the interim maintenance allowance as mentioned above. The husband challenged the order in an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the husband submitted that he was unemployed and therefore unable to pay the allowance. It was also submitted that the wife was gainfully employed in a beauty parlour for the proof of which certain photographs were produced.

The High Court held that mere photographs showing the wife’s presence in a parlour were not sufficient to prove that she had a regular income sufficient to maintain herself and the minor daughter, Furthermore, the husband made a cursory statement that he was unemployed, but did not disclose as to how he had been surviving all along. The Court was of the view that he was concealing facts and intentionally withholding information about his income. In such a situation, the Court approved the course adopted by Metropolitan Magistrate as per which he assumed husband’s income notionally on the basis of minimum wages and passed the order of interim maintenance. Resultantly the petition was dismissed. [Khem Chand v. Bhagwati, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6776, Order dated 22-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC holding it to be an abuse of process of law.

Petitioner was accused for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (dishonour of cheque). It was alleged that he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs 12 lakhs in favour of the complainant for discharging the debt due to him. The said cheque got dishonoured. Therefore, complainant initiated the process under Section 138. The trial court summoned the petitioner as an accused. He assailed the summoning order in the present petition on the ground that the debt had become time-barred and thus the cheque represented an amount which was not legally recoverable.

The High Court observed that the petition at best-raised questions of fact which could be answered only at proper inquiry or trial. Such questions were not permitted to be raised in jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Furthermore, the Court held that filing of the petition was itself an abuse of the process of law. It was observed, “issuance of cheque gives rise to a presumption of the amount being due and consequently an acknowledgment rendering the plea of debt being time-barred inconsequential. It will be for the petitioner to show at trial that the amount was not due or that the cheque had not been issued to the complainant.” Therefore, the petition was dismissed and the costs of Rs 25,000 was imposed on petitioner. [Tarun Samdarshi v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6711, Order dated 16-01-2019]