PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Anr.

filed a petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report A on the ground that the appellants had amicably settled the dispute with the complainant. The High Court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The principles to be kept in mind while quashing B FIR/criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. are: (i) 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. It only recognises and preserves powers C which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as D the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the E offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as .to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can b1• formulated; F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R. (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a pica that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which ·have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedmg if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to qu:ish where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The conse<1uences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. [Para 15] [25-E-H; 26-A-H; 27-A-B] 14 A B c D E F u H PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

1.2 The High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to ·quash the FIR would sub serve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels o.f land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the I<IR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. The view of the High Court is accepted. The instant case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of' extortion, forgery lllld fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of' the Penal Code. [Para 16] [27-B-H; 28-A] Gian Singh v State of Punjab 2012 (8) SCR 753 : 2012 (10) SCC 303; Narinder Singh v State c~l Pw1jab 2014 • 15 A B c D E F G H 16 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IOS.C.R.