Summary
After the tenants withdrew their complaints following compensation by the purchasers, the Court treated further proceedings as futile but directed the six police personnel to deposit case-specific costs before the complaints would be quashed. The order made no general finding on criminal liability.
Issues
- Whether the two criminal complaints should continue after the complainants settled and sought withdrawal.
- What consequence should follow from the alleged role of the police personnel in the tenants’ detention and demolition of the premises.
Provisions considered
- Sections 156(3) and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973These provisions describe the procedural route taken on the tenants’ complaint: the Magistrate ordered an inquiry under Section 202, and the revisional court directed forwarding under Section 156(3) for police registration and investigation. The Supreme Court did not construe their scope. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 8)
Held
- On these facts, once the complainants sought to withdraw after their losses were compensated, further investigation or trial would serve no purpose. The Court directed quashing of the complaint proceedings upon the specified deposits; this was a case-specific settlement disposition. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- The six police personnel were directed to deposit a total of Rs. 6 lakh for each complaint, distributed by rank, within four weeks; proof had to be filed within six weeks. The observations and payment direction were not to be treated as adverse in their service records. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
The purchasers’ and the deceased owner’s brother’s petitions were allowed. The police personnel’s petitions were allowed subject to the deposits; on proof of deposit the two complaint proceedings stood quashed, and otherwise their petitions would stand dismissed.