GOLD QUEST INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 08-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 677 
GOLD QUEST INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8546 OF 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
. 
A 
B 
Code. of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 - Quashing of 
FIR - Complaint uls. 420 /PC rlw ss. 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize 
C 
Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 against 
appellant - FIR - Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR -
Settlement between the complainant and appellant-company 
- Single Judge quashed the FIR - Division Bench of the High 
Court interfered with the order of Single Judge on the ground D 
that out of 172 claimants there was no compromise with two 
persons (of whom whereabouts not known) - Held: In the 
disputes which are substantially matrimonial in nature or the 
civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have 
entered into settlement, and it is clear that there are no 
E 
chances of conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the 
proceedings u/s. 482 rlw Article 226 of the Constitution - The 
facts and circumstances of the instant case showed that the 
, Single Judge did not commit any error of law in quashing the 
FIR when after not only the complainant and the appellant · F 
settled their money dispute but also the other alleged 
sufferers too settled their claims - FIR was rightly quashed by 
the Single Judge of the High Court. 
The appellant is an International Numismatic 
company. A complaint was made by respondent no. 7 
G 
against the appellant-company alleging non-compliance 
of issuance of numismastic gold coin on receipt of Rs. 
16,800 from wife of respondent no. 7 as per the ~romise 
677 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A made by the appellant-company. Some other customers 
also had complaints on the basis of which Respondent 
No. 4 registered a case under Section 420, IPC read with 
Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money. Circulation 
(Banning) Act, 1978. The appellant-company filed a writ 
B petition seeking quashing of FIR registered against it. 
Since all the claimants including respondent no. 7 settled 
the dispute with the appellant-company and entered into 
an agreement, the Single Judge of the High Court 
disposed of the said writ petition. However, the State-
C respondents challenged the order passed by the Single 
Judge whereby the FIR was quashed, before the Division 
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench interfered 
with the order of the Single Judge on the ground that out 
of 172 claimants there was no compromise from two 
0 persons and directed Respondent No. 4 to investigate 
the crime. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the disputes which are substantially 
E matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with 
criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, 
and it has become clear that there are no chances of 
conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the 
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 
F 226 of the Constitution. However, the same would not 
apply where the nature of offence is serious like rape, 
murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under Prevention of 
Corruption Act, cases under Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act and other similar kind in 
G which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be 
awarded. The facts and circumstances of the instant 
case, showed the Single Judge did not commit any error 
of law in quashing the FIR after not only the complainant 
and the appellant settled their money dispute but also the 
H other alleged sufferers entered into an agreement with the 
GOLD QUEST INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. STATE 679 
OF TAMIL NADU 
appellant, and as such, they too settled their claims. [Para 
A 
8] [686-E-H] 
Union of India vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC: 1992 Supp. 
(1) SCC 335:1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259; B.S. Joshi & Ors. 
vs. state of Haryana & Anr. 2003 (4) SCC 675: 2003 (2) SCR 
B 
1104; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & 
Anr. 2008 (9) SCC 677: 2008 (12) SCR 236; Gian Singh vs. 
State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (10) SCC 303: 2012 (8) SCR 
753 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 
Relied on 
Para 5 
2003 (2) SCR 1104 
Relied on 
Para 5 
2008 (12) SCR 236 
Relied on 
Para 6 
2012 (8) SCR 753 
Relied on 
Para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 
8546 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07-03-2008 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.