Heinous crime cases can’t be quashed: SC

In a recent judgement of far-reaching consequences, the Supreme Court has ruled that the High Courts should not quash the First Information Report (FIR) in criminal cases in heinous crimes involving serious frauds such as duping the banks even though the parties might have ‘settled’ their disputes.

Dealing with the Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 filed by Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others against the State of Gujarat and another, the three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dr D Y Chandrachud the apex court laid down the following broad principles:

“i. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the disputes, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

vi. 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 consider the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; andx.

There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

The appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them. Further, they have criminal antecedents.

The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing the valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts and added that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant.

“We agree with the view of the High Court,” the apex court said and added, “In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384,467,468,471,120-B and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.

Hope, as a corollary to this judgement dreaded criminals and seasoned economic offenders who have so far caused a colossal loss to the banks and other financial institutions would not be able to go scot-free.

Jolt to Zakia Jafri
In a major reprieve to Prime Minister Narendra Modi the Gujarat High Court on October 5 rejected Zakia Jafri’s plea challenging a lower court order upholding SIT’s clean cheat to him. The widow of the former MP Ehsan Jafri along with activist Teesta Setalwad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace had moved the criminal review petition against a Magistrate’s order upholding the clean chit given by the special investigation team (SIT) to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi and others on allegations of larger conspiracy in connection with the 2002 post-Godgra riots.

The petition demanded that Modi and 59 others, including senior police officers and bureaucrats, be made accused for allegedly being part of a conspiracy which facilitated the riots. It had also sought the High Court’s direction for fresh investigation into the matter.