Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.ABDUL NAZEER, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
P. Dharamaraj - Appellant
Versus
Shanmugam & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1514-1516 of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos..................... of 2022) (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D.No.11748 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) no.1354 of 2022)
Decided on : 08-09-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 405, 420 and 506(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation – Victims were duped in name of giving appointment against money – Persons who claim to have paid money, but did not receive orders of appointment, were not only victims – Persons who were more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of being edged out by candidates who paid money and got selected, are also victims of alleged corrupt practices, if those allegations are eventually proved – Candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called upon to render public service – Quality of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to corrupt practices adopted by them – Public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in work performed by the appointees – Appellant is a victim as he could not get selected on account of alleged corrupt practices – To say that appellants have no locus standi, is to deny existence of what is obvious. (Paras 16, 18, 24 and 28)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 405, 420 and 506(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation – Compromise of matter – Final report implicated accused for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506(1) IPC – None of these offences except one under Section 506 IPC is compoundable under sub-section (1) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. – Offences under Sections 406 and 420 are compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320 – Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between parties, when offences are capable of having an impact not merely on complainant and accused but also on others – High Court ought not to have quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise – Corruption by a public servant is an offence against State and society at large – Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where refund of money paid may also satisfy agreement holder – High Court was completely in error in quashing criminal complaint – Impugned order of High Court set aside and criminal complaint restored to file. (Paras 31,42, 43, 44 and 50)
Facts of the case:
There are three Special Leave Petitions on hand, two of which challenge an Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, quashing criminal complaint in CC No.25 of 2021 pending on the file of Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that all the victims have compromised their claims with accused. The third Special Leave Petition arises out of an order of dismissal passed by the High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by a third party by name Anti Corruption Movement, seeking the recall of the order dated 30.07.2021 in the quash petition.
Findings of Court:
If two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. Court dealing with those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted in D.No.11748 of 2022.
2. Leave granted.
3. There are three Special Leave Petitions on hand, two of which challenge an Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”), quashing a criminal complaint in CC No.25 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that all the victims have compromised their claims with the accused. The third Special Leave Petition arises out of an order of dismissal passed by the High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by a third party by name Anti Corruption Movement, seeking the recall of the order dated 30.07.2021 in the quash petition.
4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, which include the de facto complainant, persons named as accused as well as third parties who claim to be interested/ affected, albeit indirectly.
Background Facts
5. The brief facts sufficient for the disposal of these special leave petitions are as follows:
(i) On a complaint lodged by one K. Arulmani, working in the technical wing of the factory of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Tamil Nadu, a FIR in Crime No. 344 of 2018 was registered on 13.08.2018. To avoid any confusion, the contents of the said complaint are extracted as follows:
“I have been working as a Worker in the Technical Wing of the Factory of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC), at Perambur. In the year 2014, an announcement in regard to vacancies existing for the posts of Conductor and Driver in the Transport Department. When I went to our Head Office in Pallavan Salai in connection with work, one Mr. Rajkumar got introduced to me. He told me that he hails from Pambaipadayur near Kumbakonam and he had got close contact with the then Transport Minister, Mr.Senthil Balaji and his younger brother Asok Kumar, through one Mr. Shanmugam, who was the Personal Assistant to Mr. Senthil Baljai and on paying money, jobs would certainly be got. My friends by name Ambedkar, Senthil, Vijayakanth, Muthiah and a few others told to get them jobs in the Transport Corporation and they are ready to pay money for the same. I told that money was to be given to through one Mr.Rajkumar and should there surface any problem, we should be ready to face the same. They also, agreeing to the same, paid me money, in several installments during the period from 25.12.2014 to 04.01.2015, amounting to Rs.40,00,000/. conveyed those details to Mr. Rajkumar. In the first week of January 2015, he and myself went to the house of Thiru Senthil Balaji at R.A. Puram. At that time, Mr. Shanmugam, P.A. to Thiru Senthil Balaji came towards me and received the sum of Rs.40,00,000/. We insisted on Thiru Shanmugam to see Thiru Asok Kumar and Thiru Senthil Balaji in person. Thiru Asok Kumar, who came there, when we gave the amount, had assured that all who have paid amounts would issued with appointment orders. He took us then itself to Thiru Senthil Balaji. He told in an assuring voice that there is no need to worry and all those who gave money would be definitely given appointment orders.
In the list of names released by the Transport Corporation, the names of persons for whom I gave money, have not appeared in list of appointments. Hence, persons who gave money to me started pestering me to return the money. When I asked about it to Thiru Rajkumar, he told that in the next list, their names would definitely come. But in the next list also, names of none came. When I informed this to Thiru Rajkumar, he said that he would enquire about the same to Asok Kumar and Shanmugam and then he would say. But each time when I asked Rajkumar, giving me the very same reply, asked me to wait for some time. Persons who gave me money
(1) Persons who were more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of being edged out by candidates who paid money and got selected, are also victims of alleged corrupt practices.(2) Cou....
Settlement of monetary disputes does not automatically justify the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of criminality.
Redundant criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Point of Law : Powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and accused.
The Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C when the offences are personal in nature and the parties are willing to settle, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
The court ruled that serious non-compoundable offenses, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not susceptible to quashing due to private settlement.
The court emphasized that inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious offences, to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice.
Point of Law : Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. ....
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on compromise, even if the offence is non-compoundable, in accordance with the settled propositions by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The exercise of inherent power for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings is justified to secure the ends of justice, especially in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction again....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
