CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals dismissed – High Court justified in not exercising powers under Section 482:
Held: FIR and chargesheet filed against Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) – Appellants preferred writ petition in High Court for quashing of FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) – High Court rejected the petition observing that alternative remedy under CrPC available to Appellants – High Court’s order challenged – Appeals dismissed – Previous proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”), wherein the parties filed consent terms and agreed to a one-time settlement cannot be grounds for quashing criminal proceedings – Substantial injury caused to the public exchequer and consequently public interest has been hampered – Quashing of offences under the PC Act would have a grave and substantial impact not just on the parties involved, but also on the society at large – High Court justified in not exercising powers under Section 482.
Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – On basis of settlement – Scope – Gian Singh v State of Punjab relied on – offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes like PC Act or offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim has no legal sanction.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujrat & Anr relied on – economic offences affecting financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between the private disputants – economic offences stand on a different footing than other offences.
State v. R Vasanthi relied on – grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions is not to be quashed on the ground of delay in trial or on the basis of settlement of matter by the parties. [Para 13-15, 16,17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.