IMPORTANT POINTS
Power u/s 482 CrPC is not limited to quashing proceedings within the ambit and scope of Section 320.
Settlement and compromise could be basis for quashing proceedings between private parties, particularly when the case has a predominantly civil fervour arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, matrimony relating to dowry etc., or family disputes.
The only limitation to such exercise of the power is that the crime should not be against the society.

JUDGMENT :

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondents nos.4 to 7 herein describing themselves as members of the All Kerala Chemists and Druggists Association (hereinafter referred to as `the Association’), filed a written complaint to the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam against respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.1 – Mohana Kurup was the President of the Association during the relevant period from 2004 to 2006 and thereafter from 2006 to 2008. Respondent No.2 – Raveendran was the Secretary of the Association during the same period, and respondent no.3 – Sayed was the Treasurer of the Association during the relevant period. It was alleged in the complaint filed by respondent nos.4 to 7, that respondent nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, and with common intention, misappropriated huge amounts of funds of `the Association', by misusing their position as office bearers of `the Association'. On the basis of the complaint preferred by respondent nos.4 to 7, First Information Report bearing Crime No.675/2008 was registered at Central Police Station, Ernakulam.

3. Appellant No.2 in the present appeal – Giri Nair (also claiming to be an active member of the Association), likewise filed a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam, making similar allegations against respondent nos.1 to 3.

4. The police filed a final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, on 22.03.2009, based on an affirmation during investigation, for offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Needless to mention, that the aforesaid chargesheet was based on the complaint addressed by respondents nos.4 to 7 on 09.04.2008, and not the complaint made by the appellants before this Court.

5. Dissatisfied with the initiation of action against them, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed Criminal M.C. No. 4154 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as `the High Court’) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of the final report (filed by the police in C.C. No. 90 of 2009, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam arising out of Crime No. 675/2008). The case projected by respondent nos.1 to 3 before the High Court was, that the allegations contained in the complaint dated 09.04.2008 were in the nature of a private dispute, and was of a purely personal nature, without any involvement of public policy, and as such, the matter could be settled between the parties through an amicable settlement. And that, it had been so settled.

6. Along with the aforesaid Criminal M.C. No. 4154 of 2009, respondent nos.1 to 9 filed a joint petition seeking compounding under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention, that respondent nos.4 to 7 were the original complainants on whose complaint, the case came to be registered against respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent nos.8 and 9 herein, were the General Secretary and Treasurer of `the Association', at the time when Criminal M.C. No. 4154/2009 was filed.

7. According to the assertions made before this Court, the High Court was informed, that the matter had been settled between the parties, and that, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. The High Court, in the above view of the matter, passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2009, whereby, proceedings in CC No. 90/2009, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, were quashed. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order is extracted herein:-

“2. A compounding petition is filed jointly by the petitioners and respondents 1 to 6 stating that entire disputes were settled with the petitioners, who were the former office bearers and respondents 1 to 4, the complainants and respondents 5 and 6, the present office bearers and respondents 1 to 4 admit that there was no misappropriation of the amounts of AKCDA as alleged and respondents 5 and 6 agreed the same. In view of the settle