Rakesh Kumar vs. State Of Hp And Anr

Held

The Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are wide and can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or FIRs in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice, even if the offences are non-compoundable. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in B.S. Joshi, Preeti Gupta, and Parbatbhai Aahir, which established that Section 320 of the CrPC does not limit the High Court's power under Section 482. The Court found that in the present case, a compromise had been reached between the parties, and continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose and would not lead to a conviction. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the Court exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings pending before the trial court qua the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash an FIR registered against him. The FIR was filed by respondent No. 2, a contractor, alleging that the petitioner and others defrauded him of ₹5,00,000 and ₹1,20,000 for GST expenses related to a cold store project. The complainant alleged that after receiving the money, the accused persons became evasive and refused to return the funds. The petitioner argued that a compromise had been reached between the parties, rendering further proceedings futile. The State contended that the offence was non-compoundable and the petition should be dismissed. Respondent No. 2 supported the quashing of proceedings due to the compromise.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be exercised to quash an FIR, even if the alleged offences (Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code) are non-compoundable, when a compromise has been reached between the parties? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that since a compromise deed has been executed between the parties, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against him, and therefore, the FIR and consequent proceedings should be quashed. The petitioner relied on the principle that quashing is permissible to secure the ends of justice. Revenue/State's Argument: The State argued that the offences alleged are not compoundable, and therefore, the petition for quashing the FIR should be dismissed. The State did not rely on any specific provision or precedent in this regard, other than the non-compoundable nature of the offences.