The Court's decision emphasized the preservation of inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC to prevent an abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

The petitioners in essence seeks quashment of GR Case No.4(S) 08 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong on the ground of having settled the disputes with the complainant (respondent No.2).

2. The offences allegedly committed being non-compoundable therefore, in pursuance of the settlement reached amongst the petitioners and proforma respondent, the learned Trial Court could not accept the same for closure of criminal case, in view of bar under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

3. section 320 CrPC, 1973 does not operate as a bar for invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, 1973 and exercise thereof, hence, the instant petition.

4. The petitioners claimed to be the shareholders of Shebawheels Private Limited Company, having its registered office at Ziakurvilla, Bishnupur, Shillong, whereas, the respondent No.2 claimed to be its Managing Director.

5. The respondent No.2 lodged a report before the Police-in-Charge, Rilbong Police Beat House on 08.11.2004 against the petitioners No.1 and 2 to the effect:

(i) that they in connivance not only dishonestly, fraudulently, removed, concealed the properties of M/s Shebawheels and siphoned huge amounts of funds from the company, but also indulged in fraud and forgery of documents filed with the Government authorities with a purpose to falsely establish their superior shareholding in the company and to usurp it by illegal means.

(ii) In fact, the petitioner No.1 was employed by the company as Accounts Officer in its Shillong office in the year 1979 he had gained complete trust and confidence. He introduced petitioner No.2 as Chartered Accountant. The petitioner No.1 being in charge of the entire finances of the company started siphoning of funds on one pretext or the other in the name of petitioner No.2. Besides cash withdrawals, the petitioners No.1 and 2 coaxed Gaurav Rathore (son of the complainant) signing one cheque after another for withdrawing cash for meeting expenses of the company.

(iii) The complainant while leaving Shillong had entrusted his son with the cheque books duly signed by him for the purpose of running the company affairs. Petitioners influenced Gaurav Rathore who was the other signatory on the cheques. Besides illegal cash withdrawals, they started diverting the funds of the company to their personal accounts. The illegal siphoning and misappropriation of funds from the company by the petitioners No.1 and 2 is over Rs. 1.73 crores. Thereafter, the petitioners No.1 and 2 misused the blank cheques by passing those on to various companies and allowing those to get dishonoured. The petitioner No.1 has shown some income from the company for the year 2001-02 as major shareholders of the company. Upon careful perusal of the balance sheet and the Auditors report, the complainant realized that his signatures as well as the signatures of his wife appearing on these documents did not belong to him and his wife as such, were forged. His son informed that the signatures on the income tax return did not belong to him. In fact, Dileep Kumar Jain (petitioner No.1) has asked him to put his signatures on the returns as well as on the cheques.

(iv) It is further mentioned in the report that the petitioners No.1 and 2 had already sold their shares held by them in the name of their relatives, companies or associate companies and the transfer deeds for the same were received by M/s Shebawheels from different buyers and shares are transferred in the name of purchasers on 15.08.2002, 23.10.2002 and 30.11.2002. The petitioners were still maintaining that they are shareholders of the company.

(v) In the detailed report as precisely referred hereinabove, it has been finally mentioned therein that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have not only stolen the cheques, books of accounts, other documents, record of the company and illegally retained them but also indulged in huge siphoning of funds from the