The Supreme Court today while hearing a petition challenging the order of quashing of FIR u/s 482 CRPC held that "thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offenses are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others."

In an important judgment rendered by the Apex Court today, in the case of P.Dharamaraj V. Shanmugam & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1514 of 2022 whereby the FIRs were quashed by the MArdas High Court for a trial case related to Members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamilnadu on the ground that all the victims have compromised their claims with the accused.

The top Court said that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder.

The Court had three issues to decide which are expressed in Para 14 as under:-

14. In a   nutshell, the rival contentions revolve around three important issues. They are:

(i)  the locus standi of the appellants; which the Court answered that the appellant is one of the victim as he could not get selected on account of alleged corruption.

(ii) the effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the four accused on the other hand; which the court answered that corruption by a public servant is an offence against society at large.

(iii)  the non­inclusion in the charge­sheet of the offences under the P.C. Act; which the court answered that We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report.  The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” (the opposite of what Alexander Pope wrote in “Epistle to Dr.Arbuthnot”)

The Court finally setting aside the order said in Para 50 as under:-

50. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the High   Court   is   wholly   unsustainable.   Therefore   the   appeals   are allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.  The criminal complaint is restored to file.  The I.O. shall now proceed under Section 173(8) of the Code to file a further report, based on the   observations   made   in   the   preceding   paragraphs. Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O.  If two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. The Court dealing with those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act.

The bench of the Supreme Court was consisting of Justice S.Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian which delivered the following judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/29539/29539_2021_4_1501_37957_Judgement_08-Sep-2022.pdf