Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Jeet Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 183 of 2025
Decided on : 09-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Serious offences against society, particularly forgery and cheating involving public officials, cannot be quashed based on compromise between parties.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 465, 468, 467, 471 - Quashing of FIR - Petition filed for quashing FIR based on compromise between parties - Court held that offences against society, particularly forgery and cheating involving public officials, cannot be quashed based on compromise - The FIR involves serious allegations impacting societal interests and cannot be treated as a mere private dispute. (Paras 6, 18)

(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 482 - The High Court's power to quash FIR is not applicable for non-compoundable offences involving societal interests, especially economic offences. (Paras 16.6, 16.10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 222/22 for offences under IPC sections related to forgery and cheating, asserting a voluntary compromise. The trial was at an initial stage.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR involved serious offences against societal interests, justifying the continuation of proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed based on a compromise and the nature of the offences involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that serious offences against society, particularly those involving forgery and public officials, cannot be quashed based on a compromise, emphasizing the societal impact of such crimes.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 222/22, dated 6.7.2022, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station, Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. It has been asserted that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily. The trial is at its initial stage. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

2. I have heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

3. Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 can be quashed based on the compromise between the parties. He relied upon the judgments of Jayraj Singh Digvijay Singh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 AIR SCW 4092, Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, CR.M-M No. 49267 of 2021, decided on 6.2.2023. Pargat Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others CR.M-M No. 57804 of 2024, decided on 07.01.2025, Satpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another CR.M-M No. 17790 of 2019, decided on 8.9.2021, and K. Bharti Devi and another Vs. State of Telangana and another, SLP (Crl) 4353 of 2018, decided on 03.10.2024 in support of his submission.

4. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 471 are offences against society which cannot be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, that where the settlement between the offender and the victim is regarding the offences against society, the same will not justify the quashing of the FIR. The offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC involve the forgery of the document and such offences cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the IPC. It was observed: -

13. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29: (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 563], a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the respondents were alleged to have obtained letters of credit from a bank in favour of fictitious entities. The charge sheet involved the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills. Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the case involved an allegation of forgery; hence, the Court was not dealing with a simple case where “the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere”. The Court held that the manner in which letters of credit were issued and funds were siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law: (SCC p. 42, para 26)

“26. … availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposes fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus operandi, as narrated in the charge sheet, cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social wrong, and it has an immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of handling finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of these kinds of benefits, it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The ultimate victim is the collective. It crea