Supreme Court Quashes Cross FIRs in Employee Dispute: Shubra P Kandpal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement between parties.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Shubra P Kandpal vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Others

Judgment Date: December 3, 2024

Date of the Judgment: December 3, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 982

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can cross criminal cases between employees of an educational institution be quashed if both parties agree to settle? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, allowing the quashing of cross FIRs based on a settlement agreement between the parties. This case involved a dispute between faculty members of a government college in Uttarakhand, where both sides had filed criminal complaints against each other. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to bring an end to the legal battle. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between faculty members of Moti Ram Babu Ram Govt. Post Graduate College, Haldwani, Uttarakhand. The appellant, Shubra P Kandpal, and respondents 3 to 6 were Assistant Professors, while respondent 2 was the Principal.

On September 19, 2021, two FIRs were lodged. FIR No. 507 was filed by respondents 2 to 6 against the appellant under Sections 389, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The appellant filed FIR No. 506 against respondents 2 to 6 under Section 354-A of the IPC. The appellant alleged harassment by the respondents, which led to her filing the FIR.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, seeking to quash the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, and the entire proceedings against her. The High Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings under the SC/ST Act but refusing to quash the proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court initially referred the matter to mediation, considering that both parties were employees of a government college. The mediation was successful, and a settlement agreement was reached. The parties then jointly applied to the Supreme Court to quash the cross FIRs.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offense of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
  “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the offense of criminal intimidation.
  “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): These sections pertain to offenses of intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the court were primarily focused on the settlement reached between the parties through mediation.

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the successful mediation and the settlement agreement should be sufficient grounds for quashing the cross FIRs.
• The State of Uttarakhand and the respondents’ counsel concurred with the appellant’s counsel, submitting that quashing the proceedings would serve the interest of justice.
• Both sides emphasized that the parties involved were employees of an educational institution and that continuing the criminal proceedings would not be in the best interest of either party or the institution.

The primary argument was based on the successful mediation and the agreement by both parties to end the criminal proceedings against each other. The counsels for both sides agreed that continuing the legal battle would not serve the interests of justice, especially since the parties were employees of the same educational institution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the implicit issue before the court was:

• Whether the cross FIRs could be quashed based on the settlement agreement reached between the parties, invoking the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any prior cases or books in this judgment. The decision was primarily based on the unique facts of the case and the settlement agreement between the parties. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the cross FIRs (FIR Nos. 506 and 507 of 2021) lodged at Police Station Haldwani, Nainital. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, noting that the parties had resolved their disputes through successful mediation.

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific authorities in this case, the primary basis of the judgment was the settlement agreement between the parties and the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the successful mediation and the settlement agreement between the parties. The Court considered the fact that both parties were employees of an educational institution and that continuing the criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of either party or the institution. The Court also emphasized the need to bring an end to the criminal proceedings to foster a harmonious environment.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates a strong emphasis on the settlement and the need for amicable resolution.

The ratio of Fact:Law that influenced the court to decide is as follows:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the unique circumstances of the case, where both parties, being employees of a government college, had agreed to settle their disputes. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and bring an end to the legal proceedings.

The Court considered that the continuation of criminal proceedings would not be in the interest of justice, given the settlement agreement and the fact that both parties were employees of the same institution.

The court stated, “We find that this is a fit case wherein, in order to give an end to the criminal proceedings between the parties, who are employees of an educational institution, the proceedings can be quashed by this Court by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”

The court also noted, “The cross FIRs, one filed by the appellant against Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the other lodged by Respondent Nos.2 to 6 against the appellant i.e. FIR Nos.506 of 2021 and 507 of 2021 lodged at Police Station Haldwani, Nainital are quashed and set aside.”

The Court appreciated the efforts made by the mediator and the counsels for both sides, stating, “We place on record our appreciation for the efforts made by Ms. Manjeet Chawla, learned Mediator, Ms. Anagha S. Desai and Shri Kunal Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to give an end to the criminal proceedings between the parties.”

Key Takeaways

• Cross criminal cases between employees of educational institutions can be quashed by the Supreme Court if the parties reach a settlement through mediation.
• The Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice and end legal proceedings.
• Mediation is an effective tool for resolving disputes, especially in cases involving employment and institutional relationships.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the quashing of the cross FIRs and disposed of the pending applications.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash cross FIRs in cases where parties, particularly those in employment relationships, have reached a settlement through mediation, thereby promoting amicable resolution and complete justice. This decision reinforces the Court’s willingness to use its constitutional powers to facilitate settlements and end protracted legal battles, especially when it serves the interest of justice and promotes harmonious relationships within institutions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the Court’s approach to utilizing its powers for amicable settlements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the cross FIRs in the case of Shubra P Kandpal vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others highlights the importance of mediation and settlement in resolving disputes, particularly in cases involving employees of educational institutions. The Court’s invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution underscores its commitment to ensuring complete justice and bringing an end to protracted legal battles.