J.D. Kapoor, J.@mdashMore than two decades have passed still the fate of the petitioner against whom instant FIR No. 1066/1982 u/s 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 IPC P.S. Kotwali was registered for having embezzled the money of Punjab National Bank of which he was the employee hangs in fire. So much so even the charges have not been framed against him. With such an ambling pace another two decades will be taken in concluding the trial. What an irony and travesty of justice. This is not a delayed justice. Justice is not even in sight. Petitioner has to pass through the dark long tunnel.
2. However, by way of civil suit, the said amount has already been recovered from the petitioner. Through this petition, the quashing of aforesaid FIR is being sought mainly on the ground that if by way of civil suit recovery of amount due to the bank is made, the criminal proceedings should not be continued. Since the offences are not compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C, the learned APP is resisting the petition.
3. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors Vs. State of Haryana II (2003) SLT 689 wherein it was held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing and it is however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
The Supreme Court held that such cases are basically a matter of civil dispute as apart from filing the FIR, the banks had already filed suits for recovery of the dues and by way of compromise, suit was decreed. It was also observed that even if an offence of cheating is prima facie constituted, such offence is a compoundable offence and compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by Banks, for all intents and purposes, amount to compounding of the offence of cheating. In the aforesaid case the delay was writ large. So is in the instant case. The FIR was registered in 1982. Impasse is still continuing. Such an inordinate delay in deciding the fate of the people who are facing criminal prosecution transforms the justice itself which ultimately ends up in its distortion.
5. In view of the long inordinate delay in the prosecution and the fact that petitioner is facing incarceration and rigors of criminal trial for two decades and the complainant bank has already recovered the amount by way of civil suit. Ends of justice cry that proceedings should not be allowed to continue further. This court would also be failing the justice if inherent powers are not invoked by quashing the FIR and the proceedings in the face of facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In the result, petition is allowed. FIR and the proceedings arising there from are quashed.
