Regarding Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC
I have been accused by Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Octroi Department) for paying less Octroi and an FIR has been lodged against me even though I have only signed the concerned Document i.e. the 'R' Form on behalf of the Company, and the values were declared by the Clearing Agent at the Check Post without consulting me and duly accepted by the Octroi Inspector.
Charge sheet has been given but not yet framed.
If the company pays the short paid Octroi and Municipality agrees to issue a letter for compounding and mentions about "not interested in further prosecution" or anything similar can the case be compounded and squashed by High Court? The matter is with the trial court (additional Chief MM)
Asked 2 years ago in Criminal Law from Greater Mumbai, Maharashtra
Yes it can be quashed base on the compromise or through plea bargening.
Feel free to call
Advocate, New Delhi
if the concerned authorities an aggrieved parties agree to compromise by settling the due or penalty, you can move a 482 petition in the high court , to quash the FIR and charges.This can be done either before the charge sheet or after police submit the charge sheet.
However it is advisable to do before the charge sheet.
The sections involved are not compoundable under Cr.P.C provisions so lower court has no power to allow it to compound it / settle it., your option is to either get the witnesses to turn hostile or before the trial move a quash petition
Does BMC need to quote any Sections or laws under which it can be compounded or a letter from the highest authority mentioning the receipt of payment and no furtherance in the case ? Under FIR only those sections have been mentioned as enlisted earlier, no other sections have been mentioned in FIR or CHARGE SHEET. In case the trial continues can I be convicted in place of the company?
Asked 2 years ago
If the Municipal authority indicate that they are no interested to prosecute the case anymore, then the lower trial court itself may decide to discharge the accused from the case.
The BMC on receipt of mits dues, if inclines to drop the matter without any prosecution, it need not quote any section for this, the court will take care of this.
1. It is the company that is liable to be prosecuted. In the absence of specific evidence which can attribute guilt to you no prosecution could have been launched against you. Be that as it may, BMC has the right to withdraw the case through the process of compounding if the shortfall is paid. There is no legal requirement to quote sections under which compounding is to take place.
2. Even if compounding does not come through you can unilaterally move the High Court for quashing. Since you are an accused the court can convict you.