HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
I.A.No.4 of 2021
In/and
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.647 of
2021 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate,
filed the above Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings in the above Crime, which was registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C.
Along with the Criminal Petition, the second respondent filed
I.A.No.4 of 2021 to record the compromise. Along with the petition, joint memo which is signed by the parties and their counsel, photographs of the parties and Photostat copies of their Aadhar Cards came to be filed. It is stated in the affidavit that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes.
Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court, when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the elders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the petitioner has stated that he is ready to execute a registered sale deed in respect of H.No.2-80, situated at Vellanki Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District and the land admeasuring Ac.2.20 gts., out of Sy.Nos.41/EE, 42/AA1, 106/EE, 111/EE, 112/EE, 117/EE, 120/RU, 133/R/1 and 139/EE, situated at 2 Vellanki Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir, in the name of his minor son aged about two years, for the welfare and upbringing of his son and the second respondent stated that he has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the High Court should act with caution and the power should be exercised sparingly only in order to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab1, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:
The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."
In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab2 after considering the Gian Singh's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 4 while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
Recently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, held as under:
"i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants 3 AIR 2019 SC 1296 5 while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, 6 namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider that whether instant cases are fit cases to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
In the case at hand, though the case was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, now the petitioner and the second respondent have amicably settled their disputes and the second respondent is not interested in prosecuting the case. In view of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, continuity of the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the parties, hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings and the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and I.A.No.4 of 2021 is ordered.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in terms of compromise, and the proceedings in Crime No.647 of 2021 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 30.11.2021 gkv 7 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI I.A.No.3 of 2021 In/and CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2021 Dated: 30.11.2021 gkv