Important Point
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or a FIR or complaint and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.

Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) filed a charge sheet against five accused persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471A Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said charge sheet, the appellant herein was made accused No.3 and the Company, in respect of which he was the former Managing Director, M/s. Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, was made the accused No.4. The other three accused are officials of the Andhra Bank.

3.The accused No.4-Company was granted financial assistance by the Andhra Bank, Opera House Branch under various facilities. On account of default in repayment of the loans, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of the amount payable and in addition, on 19th December, 1995, a complaint was made by the General Manager and the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank on the basis whereof investigations were undertaken by the CBI, which filed the above-mentioned charge sheet in the Court of the Special Judge on 30th December, 1998. The allegations under the charge sheet indicate that the accused persons conspired with each other in fraudulently diverting the funds of the Andhra Bank. Offences alleging forgery were also included in the charge sheet. The above-mentioned suit between the Company and the Bank, to which the appellant herein was also a party, was disposed of on a compromise arrived at between the parties which was reduced into writing, and was filed in the suit. On the basis of the consent terms, the suit was compromised upon the defendants agreeing to pay the amounts due as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms. What is of importance in this case is clause 11 of the consent terms, which reads as follows:-

“Clause 11. Agreed that save as aforesaid neither party has any claim against the other and parties do hereby withdraw all the allegations and counter allegations made against each other.”

4.Consequent upon the compromise of the suit and having regard to the contents of Clause 11 of the consent terms, the appellant herein filed an application for discharge from the criminal complaint, in respect of which charge sheet had been filed by the CBI. The said application was rejected by the Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, by his Order dated 11th December, 2002, which came to be challenged by the appellant before the Bombay High Court in Cr.R.A. No.49/2005, along with several other writ petitions filed by the other accused.

5.Before the High Court, it was urged that since the subject matter of the dispute had been settled between the appellant and the Bank, it would be unreasonable to continue with the criminal proceedings which had been commenced on a complaint filed on behalf of the Bank having particular regard to clause 11 of the consent terms by which the parties had withdrawn all claims against each other. It was submitted that the learned Special Judge had erred in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for discharge from the criminal case. In support of the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court, reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.,1 [1996 (5) SCC 591] wherein on the basis of facts similar to the facts of this case, this Court had held that even if an offence of cheating is prima facie made out, such offence is a compoundable offence and compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by the Bank, for all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of cheating. This Court accordingly, upheld the Order of the High Court quashing the criminal complaint after the civil action had been compromised between the parties.

6.Apart from the said decision, reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in the case of B.