The gravity of the offences and their impact on society must be considered when deciding whether to quash proceedings based on compromise.

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 59/2017 pending in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the parties have compromised the matter and, therefore, they had filed an application under Section 320 of CrPC, which has been rejected by order dated 21/02/2018. It is submitted that in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the proceeding can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

3. If the FIR which has been lodged against the present applicants is considered, then it is clear that the applicants are the employees of the Bank and it is alleged that on the basis of forged documents, they had sanctioned loan of Rs.60,000/- in favour of co-accused persons. It is well known that the Bank, sanction the loan only after duly verifying the documents. Thus, it cannot be said that the documents which were made available by the co-accused persons, were relied by the Bank without getting it verified.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicants have nothing to do with the present matter because the Bank had acted upon the documents which were made available by the co-accused persons and the applicants were not knowing that the documents, which were produced by the co-accused persons, were forged. The submissions made by the counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted because before sanctioning the loans, the documents are always verified by the Bank.

5. The Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) has held that subject to the gravity of the offence, the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise, but in the present case, if the allegations made against the present applicants are taken into consideration, then it appears that they are serious in nature and are not private in nature and have serious impact on the society.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Gopakumar B. Nair vs. C.B.I & Anr, reported in (2014)5 SCC 800 has held as under :-

''13. The decision in Gian Singh (supra) holding the decision rendered in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and other cases to be correct is only an approval of the principle of law enunciated in the said decisions i.e. that a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed under Section 482CrPC on the ground of a settlement between the offender and the victim. It is not an affirmation, for there can be none, that the facts in Nikhil Merchant (supra) justified/called for the due application of the aforesaid principle of law. Also, neither Nikhil Merchant (supra) nor Gian Singh (supra) can be understood to mean that in a case where charges are framed for commission of non-compoundable offences or for criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the PC Act, if the disputes between the parties are settled by payment of the amounts due, the criminal proceedings should invariably be quashed. What really follows from the decision in Gian Singh (supra) is that though quashing a non-compoundable offence under Section 482CrPC, following a settlement between the parties, would not amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 320 of the Code the exercise of the power under Section 482 will always depend on the facts of each case. Furthermore, in the exercise of such power, the note of caution sounded in Gian Singh (supra) (para 61) must be kept in mind. This, in our view, is the correct ratio of the decision in Gian Singh (supra).

14. The aforesaid principle of law may now be applied to the facts of the present case. At the very outset a detailed narration of the charges against the accused-appellant has been made. The appellant has been charged with the offence of criminal c