Dear Kapoor,
As per the rules of the Criminal Procedure in India, only compoundable offences can be settled outside the court. Once a criminal complaint is registered, in the case of non - compoundable offences, it cannot be withdrawn, even if a compromise is reached between the parties, as serious criminal offences are crimes against society and, not, merely, against individuals. However, Lok Adalats can be extremely helpful in case of compoundable offences as compensation can be awarded by the Lok Adalats, without resorting to long drawn out court procedures.
Gothrough the following case law:
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre JT 1988 (1) SC 279,
it was explained by the Supreme Court that it was for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to consider whether it was expedient and in the interests of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. One of the factors mentioned by the Supreme Court is whether, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. Applying this decision to the facts on hand it requires to be acknowledged that for proving forgery, the prosecution does not have to rely only upon the evidence of the complainant; it can be proved even by the report of the CFSL. This is not therefore a case where the chances of ultimate conviction are rendered bleak on account of the complainant having settled the matter with the
accused. This court cannot be unmindful of the fact that in criminal cases there are only two parties, viz., the accused and the State. When one of the parties i.e. State is not agreeable to the quashing of the proceedings, and the evidence that has been gathered supports the continuation of the trial for the offences of forgery and use of forged documents under Sections 468 and 471 IPC respectively, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings only on the ground that the accused and the complainant have settled their disputes. While each case has been to be examined for its peculiar
facts, the larger interests of justice and the rule of law will also have to be borne in mind. The offence of forgery is not merely against the party who is misled as a result of the use of such forged document but against the State as such. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds merit in the objection raised by learned APP for the State to the quashing of the criminal proceedings in this case. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed and the pending application stands disposed of.
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE
