Compounding of offenses by private parties does not negate prosecution for non-compoundable crimes, especially in matters concerning public interest.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 and they face allegation in a crime for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420, 465 and 471 IPC. Some of the offences are not compoundable. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they availed a loan from the 3rd respondent – a Co-operative Bank. The loan was availed offering certain sureties who produced their documents as security. Those documents were of the properties of respondents 4 and 5 herein. Those documents were pledged before the bank in the name of the sureties. The loan was advanced and amounts were availed by the accused. There was default in repayment and arbitration proceedings were initiated before the authority (R2) under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In the course of that proceedings, it was contended by respondents 4 and 5 that they were not the ones who executed the documents. Some persons had impersonated them and had executed the documents as sureties in their absence. They were not available in India and did not and could not have executed the relevant documents, it was contended.

2. Respondent No.2, on being satisfied about the allegations raised, filed a complaint before the police. The crux of the complaint is that the bank has been defrauded and the funds have been siphoned out from the coffers of the Bank fraudulently and dishonestly. The petitioners have now come before this Court. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent – Bank, or respondents 4 and 5 – the alleged sureties, have no grievance now and they have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. Inasmuch as they have compounded the offences, the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked and the proceedings may be brought to premature termination, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have entered appearance and have confirmed that they have no objection against the quashing of the proceedings accepting the composition. 4. In the nature of the allegations raised, it was felt by this Court that the response of the 2nd respondent must be ascertained. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, reports that the 2nd respondent is not willing to compound the proceedings and to get the proceedings quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that this cannot be reckoned as an offence which is personal and private between the petitioners herein and respondents 3 to 5. The Bank functions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The offence has been committed in respect of the affairs of the Co-operative Bank. Larger issues are involved. Money belonging to the members of the Co- operative Society have been fraudulently siphoned out from the coffers of the Bank by the culpable acts of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. Serious view is bound to be taken. In any view of the matter, it cannot be assumed that the dispute is one which is private and personal between the parties. The 2nd respondent has a duty as an official of the Co-operative Societies to safeguard the true interests of the Co-operative Bank including the 3rd respondent and the fact that the 3rd respondent has compounded the non-compoundable offences may not be reckoned as a sufficient justification to quash the prosecution for the offences punishable under Secs.465 and 471 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, in these circumstances, the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is totally unjustified.

5. I find merit in the opposition raised by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the 2nd respondent – the official of the Co-operative Department. I am satisfied in the nature of the allegations that the mere fact that the petitioners as also respondents 3 to 5 have chosen to come to terms is not sufficient reason to accept the composition and invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I find merit in the contention that the Bank and its officials if they were knowingly parties to th