AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3499 ::1999 AIR SCW 3492 ::1999 (8) ADSC 137 ::1999 CriAppR(SC) 509 ::2000 (1) UJ (SC) 392 ::2000 UJ(SC) 1 392 ::(1999) 4 CurCriR 58 ::(1999) 3 CurCriR 255 ::(1999) 26 AllCriR 2161 ::1999 CriLR(SC&MP) 677 ::1999 (8) SCC 686 ::2000 SCC(Cri) 47 ::1999 (4) RecCriR 223 ::(1999) 5 Scale 598.1 ::(1999) 5 Scale 609 ::1999 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 677 ::1999 (2) AndhLT(Cri) 405 SC ::1999 CalCriLR 364 ::(1999) 3 ChandCriC 120 ::1999 (17) OCR 641 ::2000 (1) LRI 1129 ::1999 (8) Supreme 53 ::1999 (39) AllCriC 790 ::(1999) SC Cr R 860 ::1999 AllMR(CRI) 2 1916 ::(1999) 6 JT 618 (SC) ::1999 (9) SRJ 405

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Gujarat)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. T. Thomas, M. B. Shah , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Inherent powers - Quashment of FIR or a complaint in exercise of - Should not be ordered merely because, arbitration is a remedy for affording relief to party. Quashment of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is not an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence of fraudulent representation and cheating. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement for supply of best quality commodity but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases.(Para 6 7) (B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482, S.190, S.179— Inherent powers - Quashment of complaint on g....