Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The respondent-CBI in addition to its submission that the facts of the case on hand do not warrant quashing of proceedings, which submission will be considered later hereinafter, supports the concern about exercise of inherent power for quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the ground of compromise. Both the counsel for C.B.I., Mr.V.C.Gupte and Mrs.A.S.Pai are in unison in their submission that the court should be slow and extremely careful in exercise of it's inherent jurisdiction in such matters keeping in focus larger issue of the welfare of the Society and preservation of social order. They rely upon a decision of the Delhi High Court rejecting such an application, which decision the Apex Court had refused to interfere with.

"18. The question really is where does one draw the line when it comes to quashing cases involving non-compoundable offences. Despite the unanimity in the decisions that a case involving the offence of rape ought not to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,this court is very often approached by accused with petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of cases involving such offence on the ground that the victim and the accused are happily married. In fact, the victim joins the accused as a co-petitioner in such cases. Can it be said that for peace and harmony in society such cases must be quashed ? Is that then the `common sense' approach? These are uncomfortable but relevant questions. How far can the court go along with the `common sense' plea which if taken to its logical end might well include all kinds of offences. One of the purposes for prescribing punishments for crimes is that it serves to deter specifically the accused involved and generally other potential accused from committing similar crimes. By quashing cases like the present, this purpose may be defeated. Also, by widening the scope in this manner, much will depend on the individual outlook of judges as to when to exercise the power to quash. That in turn makes such decisions vulnerable to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. This Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 is also required to account for the public policy compulsions involved in continuing to treat the offences under Section 468 and 471 IPC as non-compoundable. In the mass of judicial orders where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been exercised to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, the principle on which to base such decision remains elusive."

17. The above is the backdrop against which the present application for quashing of criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences based on the claim of compromise are required to be considered. Since,what is most relevant is the facts and circumstances of the cases, the same are required to be narrated in sufficient details. The facts of the two cases are as follows :-

18. FACTS IN F.I.R.NO.RC 9(E)/2001 CBI/BS&FC, MUMBAI :-

21. A question at this stage would arise whether the court can look into sufficiency or appropriateness of the settlement between the companies and the bank, or the same must be left entirely to the parties involved and the court should accept the settlement with closed eye. In my considered opinion, the court can definitely look into the adequacy of settlement for limited purposes. Since the application to the Court is to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, it becomes the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself that the adjustment arrived at is settlement in real sense of the term. The court must also be conscious of the nature of the dispute and the profile of the parties involved therein. In the instant case, the monetary settlement is completely lopsided. The bank has accepted it and filed an affidavit stating that it does not have anymore claim against the two companies. The bank has written off more than Rs.5 crores in the course of settlement. What is given up by the bank is the * 29 * public money. Each investor, each account holder has a stake in it. Had such settlement been between the two private individuals, it would have been a completely different matter.