The said Consent Judgment states that the parties agreed to release and waive all claims, actions, suits, and/or proceedings relating to the dispute over the issuance of the Credit Notes. These include the release of the Plaintiff’s right to bring any civil and criminal claims against the Applicants after 9.4.2019. The said paragraph of the Consent Judgement is as follows: “4. Pihak Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan bersetuju untuk melepaskan dan/atau mengenepikan semua tuntutan, tindakan, kausa tindakan, hak, guaman, prosiding, gantirugi, kos, caj, obligasi, liabiliti atau tuntutan, yang mana setiap pihak mungkin ada sekarang atau mungkin ada selepas in berkenaan dengan hal perkara yang berlaku sebelum 9/4/2019, terhadap satu sama lain melainkan dan kecuali apa-apa tindakan untuk menguatkuasakan dan melaksanakan penghakiman ini menurut perenggan 2 di atas. Terma ini juga tidak merangkumi Guaman Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur WA-22NCvC-5-01/2016” [Translated:-The Plaintiff and the Defendants hereby agree to release and/or waive all claims, actions, causes of action, rights, suits, proceedings, damages, costs, charges, obligations, liabilities, or demands which either party may have now or may have in the future, relating to matters arising before 9/4/2019, against each other, except for any actions to enforce and implement this judgment as stated in paragraph 2 above. These terms do not include the High Court of Kuala Lumpur WA-22NCvC-5-01/2016 lawsuit.] [5] The Applicants' then solicitor, Messrs YC Pang, Chong & Gordon, has informed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (SPRM) through a letter dated 15.4.2019 that all parties involved in the Civil Proceedings have entered into a Consent Judgment and that the Plaintiff no longer intends to pursue their complaints and/or claims against the Applicants. The Plaintiff’s solicitor, Messrs Justin Voon Choi & Ving, via letter dated 12.4.2019, had also notified SPRM of the Consent Judgement. [6] After a delay of 4 years, the Applicants were only charged in the Criminal Court on 21.4.2022 after they had fulfilled all obligations under the Consent Judgment. The Applicants contended that these charges constitute an abuse of the court process, characterized by oppression and mala fide, as the dispute over the Credit Notes had been resolved through the Consent Judgment. Applicants’ Argument [5] The Applicants argued that this Court has the discretion to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the Court process and to secure the ends of justice. The Applicants invited this Court to use Section 482 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian authorities as relevant and applicable authorities to this Court. More so, the Applicants contended that Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 is similar in wording to Section 482 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. As such, this Court can quash all the charges against the Applicants for being an abuse of court process, oppressive, and mala fide. [6] The Applicants submitted that after all issues and disputes between the parties have already been resolved, and that the Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing any action against the Applicants, there was, in actual fact, no offence committed by the Applicants at the time of them being charged as there is no longer any wrongful gain and/or wrongful loss nor any misappropriation of property. By commencing criminal proceedings against the Applicants, the Respondent abuses the court process, oppressing and prejudicing the Applicants. [7] The Applicants are private individuals without any prior criminal offences, and the Plaintiff is a corporation. The Applicants argued there is no basis for a criminal court to interfere in what seems to be a dispute regarding a commercial transaction that has already been settled between the parties by way of the Consent Judgement. There is also no element of violence in the alleged charges against the Applicant. Therefore, the charges against the Applicants should be quashed to give the correctional objective of criminal law more weight than the theory of deterrence. Respondent’s Arguments [8] The Respondent has put forth several arguments in support of their position. They relied on Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to emphasize the power of the Public Prosecutor in initiating, conducting, and terminating criminal proceedings. They assert that the authority to prosecute lies solely with the Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, the Respondent argues that they are not obligated to adhere to the Consent Judgment reached between the Applicants and the Plaintiff. This is because the Respondent was not a party to the Civil Proceeding. Additionally, they point out that Order 1(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 explicitly states that these rules do not apply to criminal proceedings. Therefore, the charges against the Applicants cannot be considered oppressive or mala fide. Findings Of The Court [9] The Applicants urged this court to use section 482 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, which provides: - “482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Moreover, the Applicants try to persuade this court to consider Indian authorities in order for this court to ascertain whether there has been an abuse of process in the framing of charges against the Applicants. The Applicants cited the Indian Supreme Court case, Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2017] 9 SCC 641, which, according to the Applicants' submission, holds that a dispute with civil elements that has been resolved between parties cannot be pursued through criminal prosecution to prevent an abuse of the court process and injustice. They also referred to the case of Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293, in which the Supreme Court outlined certain questions that the High Court must analyse when considering the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court cases Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department and another (AIR 2020 SC 626) and Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others Versus State of Gujarat and Another ([2020] 2 MLJ (CRL) 621) were also cited by the Applicants. The Supreme Court in these cases quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the complainant because it was filed four years after civil proceedings were initiated. In the latter case, the Supreme court quashed the FIR when the issue of the authenticity of receipts is still under consideration in the civil suit. [10] After researching the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, I have found that in India, the commencement of criminal proceedings is determined by the subordinate court (Magistrates) upon taking cognisance of an offence and not initiated by the Public Prosecutor. Typically, in India, criminal proceedings commence with the complainant filing an FIR with the police, providing details about the commission of a cognisable offense. Once the FIR is filed, the police will investigate the matter. If after the investigation, the police believe that there is enough evidence to proceed with the case, they will file a charge sheet in the court. This charge sheet includes information about the offense, the evidence gathered, and the identities of the accused individuals. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the court will review the evidence and make a decision on whether to formally charge the accused or to discharge them. If the court deems that there is substantial evidence, charges will be framed, and the trial process will commence. (Refer to Indian law -