The Supreme Court has held that the consent of an informant is not necessary for the quashing of criminal proceedings when the actual victim has voluntarily settled the dispute with the accused.
The ruling came while the Court set aside a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declined to terminate criminal proceedings because the original informant was not a party to the settlement reached between the accused and the person directly affected by the alleged offence.
A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli observed that allowing an informant, who is not the real victim, to control or obstruct a settlement could produce unfair consequences.
The Court stressed that while someone other than the victim may initiate the criminal process, the settlement relevant to a plea for quashing must involve the person who actually suffered the alleged wrong.
It observed that permitting a non-victim informant to dictate the fate of such a settlement while the real victim remains unheard would defeat the purpose of the law.
The Court clarified that the nature of the case remains important. Criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement only where the matter falls within the recognised categories in which such relief is legally permissible.
Dispute Traced Back to Land Transaction
The case stemmed from a complaint filed in 2011 concerning approximately 54.48 acres of land belonging to Pradeep Singh Mehta, who was identified as the person directly affected by the alleged transactions.
The complaint alleged that the accused and others had conspired to take control of the land through forged documents, including an alleged forged General Power of Attorney and a partnership arrangement involving M/s Paradise Farms.
Following the complaint, cognizance was taken for several offences, including forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
After an earlier attempt to secure relief from the High Court failed, the appellant again approached the court, this time relying on a settlement with Mehta.
Mehta submitted an affidavit stating that the land had been brought into the partnership on his instructions and that the required steps had been taken accordingly. He further stated that he no longer had any grievance against the accused and did not wish to continue with the matter.
Despite this, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, taking the view that the original informant had not joined the settlement.
Supreme Court Finds High Court’s Approach Unsustainable
The Supreme Court disagreed with that reasoning.
Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment, held that the absence of the informant from the settlement could not, by itself, be a reason to reject a request for quashing when the actual victim had resolved the dispute.
Referring to earlier decisions, including the ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that proceedings involving disputes with a predominantly civil character may be brought to an end after a genuine settlement, even where the offences involved are technically non-compoundable.
The Court found that the allegations in the present matter carried a strong civil and commercial character.
With the parties directly involved having resolved their differences, the Court said the possibility of securing a conviction had become remote.
Continuing such proceedings, it noted, would only add another case to an already burdened judicial system.
In a pointed observation, the Court remarked that the principal parties had moved beyond their dispute and that justice would be better served by bringing the proceedings to a close rather than allowing the case to continue unnecessarily.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
