Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Introduction 1.1 These three cases involve a common question of law concerning the scope of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') to quash the criminal proceedings where the offences involved include that of forgery and use of forged documents as defined under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). In each of these petitions filed by the accused, the quashing of the proceedings is sought on the basis that their disputes with the complainants have been settled. This plea is opposed by the prosecution on the ground that there is evidence in each of the cases in the form of a report by the Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') to prove the offences independent of the evidence of the complaint. It is urged that the powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash the proceedings involving such non- compoundable offences.

6.5 There can be no doubt therefore that the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is wide enough to pass orders which would subserve the ends of justice. However, it has been repeatedly urged that this power must be exercised sparingly. The question in each case where such powers are invoked is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such power such be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.

Quashing of criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences 7.1 In the present cases the common thread of the submission by the accused is that the complainants do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings since they have settled their disputes with the accused. Therefore, according to them, there is no purpose in continuing the proceedings. The presumption underlying this submission is that the dispute is essentially only between the accused and the complainant. This presumption is questionable since in the criminal justice system as presently ordered, in cases involving cognizable offences like that of forgery and use of forged documents (which is common to all three cases here), there are essentially two parties to the case: the State and the accused. The complainant or the victim figures only as a witness. It is possible to argue that in the context of plea bargaining, recently introduced in the CrPC for a certain category of offences, a limited role is assigned to the complainant. Otherwise the role of the complainant is in triggering the prosecution and later appearing as its witness. Later, in the event the accused is convicted, the complainant may be compensated in terms of Section 357 CrPC. The State as a party to the dispute has in the present cases expressed its opposition to the prayer for quashing. Therefore the mere fact that the accused and the complainant have settled their disputes may not by itself be justification to say that the 'parties' to the case have settled their disputes and therefore the criminal proceedings involving cognizable offences should be dropped.

7.3 The non-compoundable offences involved in the present case include Section 468 and 471 of the IPC. Section 468 prescribes punishment for the offence of forgery of a document for the purpose of cheating defined under Section 463 of the IPC and the punishment can extend to imprisonment for a period of seven years and is also inclusive of fine. Under Section 471, the use of a forged document would be punishable in the same manner as forgery of a document under Section 465 is punishable. The definition of forgery in terms of Sections 463 and 464 IPC is wide enough to include the making of a false document by altering it dishonestly. Some of the illustrations under Section 464 IPC as well as those under Explanations 1 and 2 thereof are similar to the present three cases. However, that in any event would be the subject matter of trial and no definite opinion can be expressed at this stage. What is relevant however is that these offences feature in Chapter XVIII of the IPC titled "Offences relating to documents and property marks". The fact that these offences have been separately classified and have been made cognizable indicates the intent of the legislature. Significantly, offences relating to the counterfeiting of bank notes and currency notes are included in this Chapter. The very nature of these offences indicates that the legislature intended to treat them as a separate class. These offences cannot be viewed as offences relating only to individuals but as having an impact on society as well. There are therefore good public policy considerations in retaining these offences as cognizable and non-compoundable. These public policy considerations have to be kept in mind when considering a prayer for quashing of proceedings involving such offences.

Cases involving offences under Sections 468 and 47: Decisions of this Court 13.1 There are three decisions of the Division Bench of this Court where proceedings involving offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC have been quashed. In Zile Singh v. State 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 54, in para 6, it was found that "so far as the offence under Sections 468/ 471 and 120B IPC are concerned, the statements of the complainant and his brother, Respondent No. 3 make it clear that there was the case of forgery or fabrication of documents. The disputes were simply that deprivation of the complainant's share in the ancestral property which have since been settled." In B.K. Sondhi v. State 2001 (1) JCC (Del) 73, the objection of the State to the quashing was recorded. It was overruled on the ground that "the allegations of forgery have prima facie not (been) made out because the case of the petitioner throughout had been that he had never sold the property and that he never executed any document and in particular the agreement to sell." In Harnam Kaur v. State 2002 (1) JCC 149, in para 4, it was noted that the "central point is whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC had been made out or not." There was no discussion about the offences under Sections 468 or 471 IPC. None of the three decisions referred to can therefore be treated as a binding precedent on the facts of the present cases.