Back
2022 Supreme(Megh) 207
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Javed Akhtar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
Crl. Petn. No. 99 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Mr. A. S. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. with Ms. M.K. Sah, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, AAG. with Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA, for the Respondent
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise in a criminal proceeding must be unconditional and agreed to by all parties involved, and the Court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - 419/420/468/34 IPC - Section 482 Cr.P.C - 419/420/468/34 IPC - The court discussed the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to accept the settlement between the parties by way of compromise in a criminal proceeding for exercise of its inherent power. It also highlighted that the compromise cannot be affected since it is conditional and to the extent that the parties will settle their differences only if the Court allows the application for withdrawal or for compounding of the case. The court also emphasized that the compromise has to be agreed to by all the parties involved and could not have been agreed to only by some of the principal players to the exclusion of others.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, based on a Deed of Compromise between the parties. The State objected to the prayer for quashing, stating that the Deed of Compromise was conditional and premature, and that another person involved in the case had absconded.
Finding of the Court:
The Court rejected the petition, emphasizing that the compromise was conditional and could not be affected, as it was contingent on the Court allowing the application for withdrawal or compounding of the case. The Court also noted that the compromise had to be agreed to by all parties involved and could not have been agreed to only by some of the principal players to the exclusion of others.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the Deed of Compromise and the quashing of the proceedings in GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014, considering the conditional nature of the compromise and the involvement of an absconding individual in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the conditional nature of the compromise, the requirement for all parties involved to agree to the compromise, and the potential miscarriage of justice if the proceedings were quashed without the absconding individual being brought before the Court.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the Court disposed of the matter with no cost awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. Matter is taken up via hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Sr. counsel along with Ms. M.K. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that this instant application has been preferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the proceedings in GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong.
3. Mr. Siddiqui while narrating the sequence of events has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 herein are business partners. Following a misunderstanding in a business deal, the petitioner No. 1 on 24.10.2013 lodged an FIR against the petitioner No. 2 and another person named Abdul Kadir Laskar before the Lumdiengjri Police Station which was registered as Lumdiengjri P.S Case No. 102(10)2013, u/s 419/420/468/34 IPC whereupon, the petitioner No. 2 was arrested and later released on bail.
4. On investigation being completed, the Investigating Officer (I/O) filed the charge sheet before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong stating that on the facts and circumstances, a prima facie case u/s 419/420/468/34 IPC has been found well established against the petitioner No. 2 for which he was send up to the Court for trial.
5. Accordingly, GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014 was registered and trial commenced before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. Charges were framed u/s 419/420/468/34 IPC against the petitioner No. 2 on 16.03.2017 and at present, the case is at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 herein have amicably settled their differences, which was reduced in writing by way of a Deed of Compromise, dated 14.01.2020. One of the conditions stipulated in the said Deed of Compromise is that, the parties will take appropriate steps to file a joint application before the Hon'ble Court for withdrawal and/or quashing/compounding of offences in the said case.
7. The application was moved before the Trial Court, however vide order dated 14.01.2020, the Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that Section 468 IPC is not compoundable.
8. The petitioners then approached this Court, as stated above with a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C for consideration.
9. Mr. Siddiqui has further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 have come to an amicable settlement for which the petitioner No. 2 has already issued a blank dated cheque of rupees three lakhs as part of the settlement, the same to be effective in the event the Court allows the application for quashing of the said proceedings.
10. It is therefore prayed that this petition may be allowed since no legal or practical purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the said GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014.
11. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG along with Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has raised strong objection to the prayer made in this petition, by firstly pointing out that the Deed of Compromise cannot be accepted since the same is conditional and will be effective only when the Court allows the prayer for quashing of the said proceedings in GR Case No. 278(S) of 2014 and as such, no actual and meaningful compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Secondly, it is also pointed out that from the charge sheet filed by the I/O, it is noticed that another person is involved in the case, that is Shri Abdul Kadir Laskar who is found to have absconded and could not be apprehended till date and as such, in the absence of all the persons involved, the Deed of Compromise cannot be effectuated. Accordingly, this application is premature and devoid of merit. The same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Section 482 Cr.P.C reads as follows: -
'482. Saving of inherent power of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effec
