LexGOPAKUMAR B. NAIR versus C.B.I. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 4 S.C.R. 792 GOPAKUMAR B. NAIR v. C.BJ &ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2014) APRIL 7, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJ1, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 482 - Power of High Court to quash proceedings - Settlement of dispute between parties - Effect of - Criminal proceedings against accused-appellant for offences punishable uls 120B /PC, s.13 (2) rlw s. 13(1)(d) of PC Act 0 and ss. 420 and 471, !PC - Held: In the instant case, charge- sheet has been submitted and charges have been framed - Appellant has been charged u/s 13(1)(d) of PC Act, u/s 420 /PC (compoundable with leave of court) ands. 471, /PC (non -compoundable) - The offences are serious and not private E in nature - Charge of conspiracy is to commit offence under PC Act - Though amounts due to bank have been paid under a private settlement, there is no acknowledgement by the bank of exoneration of accused-appellant from criminal liability - Since High Court has come to the conclusion that F power u/s 482 should not be exercised to· quash criminal proceedings against accused-appellant, there is no justification to interfere with the said decision - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s, 13 (2) rlw s.13(1)(d) - Penal Code, - -· 1860 - SS. 120 B, 420 and 471. G REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH: Judgement - Binding effect of - Held: Reference of a case to a larger Bench necessarily has to be for a reconsideration of the principle of law on which the case has H 792 GOPAKUMAR B. NAIR v. C.B.I. & ANR. 793 been decided and not the merits of the decision -- The A decision rendered by any Bench is final inter-parte, subject to the power of review and the curative power. The instant appeal arose out of the order of the High Court passed in a petition filed by the appellant u/s 482 . B Cr.P.C., declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ s 120-B, IPC, and s. 13(2) read with s. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and ss. 420/471, IPC registered against the appellant-accused and two other C persons, namely, A-1, a Branch Manager of respondent no. 2-Bank and A-3 (since deceased). After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by respondent no. 1 CBI and charges were framed. The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the accused-appellant had 0 tendered all the amounts due to the Bank and an acknowledgement dated 303.2009 was issued by the Bank stating that it did not have any further claims and charges against the accused-appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Reference of a case to a larger Bench necessarily has to be for a reconsideration of the principle E F of law on which the case has been decided and not the merits of the decision. The decision rendered by any Bench is final inter-parte, subject to the power of review and the curative power. Any other view would have the effect of conferring some kind of an appellate power in a larger Bench of this Court which cannot be countenanced. However, the principle of law on which the decision is based, is open to reconsideration by a G larger Bench in an appropriate case. [Para 12] [801-G; 802-A-B] 1.2 The decision in Gian Singh holding the decision rendered in Nikhil Merchant and other cases to be correct H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A is only an approval of the principle of law enunciated in the said decisions i.e. that a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed uls. 482 CrPC on the ground of a settlement between the offender and the victim. Neither Nikhil Merchant nor Gian Singh can be understood to B mean that in a case where charges are framed for commission of non-compoundable offences or for criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the PC Act, if the disputes between the parties are settled by payment of the amounts due, the criminal proceedings c should invariably be quashed. What really follows from the decision in Gian Singh is that though quashing a non- com pound able offence uls. 482 CrPC, following a settlement between the parties, would not amount to circumvention of the provisions of s. 320 of the Code, the D exercise of the power uls. 482 will always depend on the facts of each case. Furthermore, in the exercise of such power, the note of caution sounded in Gian Singh (para 61) must be kept in mind. [Para 13] [802-D-H] Gian Singh vs. State of Puna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.