Case: Ashok Sadarangani &amp; Another Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

case and Manoj Sharmas case (supra) came to be considered, the Bench comprised of two Judges, was of the view that the said decisions required reconsideration and directed that the matter be placed before a larger Bench to consider the correctness of the said three decisions. Shri Jain urged that as the same issue which was involved in the present case was also the subject matter of the reference to a larger Bench, this Court should abstain from pronouncing judgment on the issue which was the subject matter in the said reference. Shri Jain urged that in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, no relief could be given to the Petitioners on the writ petition and the same was liable to be dismissed. 17. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the views that had been taken in Nikhil Merchants case or Manoj Sharmas case (supra) or the several decisions that have come thereafter. It is, however, no coincidence that the golden thread which runs through all the decisions cited, indicates that continuance of a criminal proceeding after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of the process of court and an exercise in futility, since the trial could be prolonged and ultimately, may conclude in a decision which may be of any consequence to any of the other parties. Even in Sushil Suris case on which the learned Additional Solicitor General had relied, the learned Judges who decided the said case, took note of the decisions in various other cases, where it had been reiterated that the exercise of inherent powers would depend entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. In other words, not that there is any restriction on the power or authority vested in the Supreme Court in exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, but that in exercising such powers the Court has to be circumspect, and has to exercise such power sparingly in the facts of each case. Furthermore, the issue, which has been referred to a larger Bench in Gian Singhs case (supra) in relation to the decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshis case, Nikhil Merchants case, as also Manoj Sharmas case, deal with a situation which is different from that of the present case. While in the cases referred to hereinabove, the main question was whether offences which were not compoundable, under Section 320 Cr.P.C. could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Gian Singhs case the Court was of the view that a non-compoundable offence could not be compounded and that the Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. In fact, in none of the cases referred to in Gian Singhs case, did this Court permit compounding of non-compoundable offences. On the other hand, upon taking various factors into consideration, including the futility of continuing with the criminal proceedings, this Court ultimately quashed the same.18. In addition to the above, even with regard to the decision of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad & Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 351] , this Court observed that the High Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court when exceptional circumstances warranted the exercise of such power. Once the circumstances in a given case were held to be such as to attract the provisions of Article 142 or Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, it would be open to the Supreme Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings, the continuance whereof would only amount to abuse of the process of Court. In the instant case the dispute between the petitioners and the Banks having been compromised, we have to examine whether the continuance of the criminal proceeding could turn out to be an exercise in futility without anything positive being ultimately achieved.19. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singhs case (supra), the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singhs case (supra) need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field. 20. In the present case, the fact situation is different from that in Nikhil Merchants case (supra). While in Nikhil Merchants case the accused had misrepresented the financial status of the company in question in order to avail of credit facilities to an extent to which the company was not entitled, in the instant case, the allegation is that as part of a larger conspiracy, property acquired on lease from a person who had no title to the leased properties, was offered as collateral security for loans obtained. Apart from the above, the actual owner of the property has filed a criminal complaint against Shri Kersi V. Mehta who had held himself out as the Attorney of the owner and his family members. The ratio of the decisions in B.S. Joshis case and in Nikhil Merchants case or for that matter, even in Manoj Sharmas case, does not help the case of the writ petitioners. In Nikhil Merchants case, this Court had in the facts of the case observed that the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute with criminal facets. This is not so in the instant case, where the emphasis is more on the criminal intent of the Petitioners than on the civil aspect involving the dues of the Bank in respect of which a compromise was worked out.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]17. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the views that had been taken in Nikhil Merchants case or Manoj Sharmas case (supra) or the several decisions that have come thereafter. It is, however, no coincidence that the golden thread which runs through all the decisions cited, indicates that continuance of a criminal proceeding after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of the process of court and an exercise in futility, since the trial could be prolonged and ultimately, may conclude in a decision which may be of any consequence to any of the other parties. Even in Sushil Suris case on which the learned Additional Solicitor General had relied, the learned Judges who decided the said case, took note of the decisions in various other cases, where it had been reiterated that the exercise of inherent powers would depend entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. In other words, not that there is any restriction on the power or authority vested in the Supreme Court in exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, but that in exercising such powers the Court has to be circumspect, and has to exercise such power sparingly in the facts of each case. Furthermore, the issue, which has been referred to a larger Bench in Gian Singhs case (supra) in relation to the decisions of this Court in B.S. Joshis case, Nikhil Merchants case, as also Manoj Sharmas case, deal with a situation which is different from that of the present case. While in the cases referred to hereinabove, the main question was whether offences which were not compoundable, under Section 320 Cr.P.C. could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Gian Singhs case the Court was of the view that a non-compoundable offence could not be compounded and that the Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. In fact, in none of the cases referred to in Gian Singhs case, did this Court permit compounding of non-compoundable offences. On the other hand, upon taking various factors into consideration, including the futility of continuing with the criminal proceedings, this Court ultimately quashed the same.18. In addition to the above, even with regard to the decision of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad & Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 351] , this Court observed that the High Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court when exceptional circumstances warranted the exercise of such power. Once the circumstances in a given case were held to be such as to attract the provisions of Article 142 or Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, it would be open to the Supreme Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings, the continuance whereof would only amount to abuse of the process of Court. In the instant case the dispute between the petitioners and the Banks having been compromised, we have to examine whether the continuance of the criminal proceeding could turn out to be an exercise in futility without anything positive being ultimately achieved.19. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singhs case (supra), the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gian Singhs case (supra) need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.