Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. V. State of Telangana & Anr. has held that criminal cases having civil nature should be quashed when the dispute between the parties is settled. 

What was the Background of the K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Case? 

• In the present case, the case was filed by the bank (respondent No.2) against the appellants. 
• The Bank contended that the appellants took a group loan and failed to pay the due interest on it due to which the group account of appellants turned as Non-Performing Asset. 
• The case was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of loan amount by the bank. 
• The bank later came to know that the Title documents submitted by the appellants were not true during the pendency of the case before DRT. 
• The complaint was filed against the appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 before the Crime Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the bank.  
• Based on the complaint the chargesheet was filed by the CBI. 
• During the pendency of the case before DRT the appellants approached the bank for settlement of dispute by offering it Rs. 3.8 Crores and the same was accepted by the bank. 
• The Bank also issued a no dues certificate against the amount paid by the appellants. 
• Based on this the appellants filed the application before the Telangana High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed before the trial Court by the CBI. 
• The case pending before the DRT was disposed of as the settlement was done between the parties. 
• The High Court, however, dismissed the appellants' application for quashing of chargesheet and held that the use of fraudulent, fake and forged documents is the crime against society. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants filed the present petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court in this case observed that: 
  • There are certain offences which bear civil nature arises out of civil dispute such offences can be compounded even if they are not compoundable. 
  • The quashing of criminal proceedings is decided on a case-to-case basis considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • The cases which do not possess criminal nature and arise out of civil dispute and where the conviction of accused is remote, continuation of such cases would be oppressive against the accused and may cause miscarriage of justice. 
    • As in the present case a dispute was already settled between the parties. 
  • This was the fit case wherein the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash the criminal proceedings. 
• Therefore, the Supreme court allowed the present appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 

What is the Landmark Judgement referred to in the K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Case? 

• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012): 
  • In this case it was observed that certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable 

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?   

About:

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. 

Cases where the Inherent Powers of the High Court cannot be Invoked: 

• In the following cases, the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked: 
  • To quash the proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR made to the police in a cognizable case; to interfere with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable case. 
  • To quash an investigation just because the FIR does not disclose any offence when investigation could be done based on other materials. 
  • To enquire about the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 
  • Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only against final orders and not against interlocutory orders. 
  • To order stay of arrest of accused during investigation. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023): 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.