Ganesh Gopaldas Mundada And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

The applicants, Ganesh s/o Gopaldas Mundada, Shyam s/o Gopaldas Mundada, and Meena w/o Gopaldas Mundada, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them. These proceedings arose from FIR Crime No. 48 of 2019, registered at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5, 11, 79 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The applicants operated a chit fund business under "Mundada Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.", which was registered with the Registrar of Companies and GST. The informant alleged that after paying nine installments totaling Rs. 1,80,000/-, he discovered on November 20, 2018, that the applicants had absconded. The applicants claimed to have settled the dispute amicably with the informant and other victims (respondent Nos. 2 to 5), who had agreed to withdraw the proceedings. However, the State opposed the quashing, highlighting that the applicants were declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and similar FIRs were lodged against them.

Held

The Court held that it should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings. The primary reasoning was that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 of the CrPC. The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions in Air Customs Officer IGI Vs. Pramod Kumar Dhamija and Virender Prasad Singh Vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj, which indicated that the High Court's view that powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised in respect of proclaimed offenders was upheld, although the specific orders were set aside on facts. In this case, the fact that proclamation had been issued against the applicants under Section 82 of the CrPC was a significant factor. The Court found that merely because a compromise had been reached subsequently, it did not render the case fit for exercising the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged offences or the validity of the settlement itself, but rather on the procedural status of the applicants as proclaimed offenders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings when the applicants have been declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite an alleged amicable settlement with the victims? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that they were running a registered chit fund company and had amicably settled their disputes with the informant and other victims (respondent Nos. 2 to 5). They contended that the victims had provided no objection for quashing the FIR and proceedings, and no offence was committed on merits. They relied on the fact that the dispute was settled and the victims wished to withdraw the case. Revenue's Arguments: The State (respondent No. 1) strongly opposed the application. They argued that the applicants had cheated numerous individuals of their hard-earned money. The State emphasized that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 of the CrPC, and the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised in such cases, citing Supreme Court decisions in Air Customs Officer IGI Vs. Pramod Kumar Dhamija and Virender Prasad Singh Vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj.