Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G.Gireesh Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 February, 2022

Bench: D Ramesh

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
                        IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021
                               IN/AND

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.3541 Of 2019
COMMON ORDER: -
IA.Nos.1 and 2of 2021

      The applications are filed requesting the Court to permit the 2nd

respondent/defacto complainant to compound the offences and record

the compromise entered into by the parties and quash the proceedings

against the petitioners, who are A1 to A3, in F.I.R.No.98 of 2018 on the

file of the Vemuru Police Station, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. The

offences alleged are under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Today i.e. on 17.02.2022 the parties, together, with their respective

counsel, are present in the Court and the identity of the parties has been

verified. On being specifically asked, both the parties confirmed the

terms of compromise recorded in the joint memorandum of compromise

appended to the applications.

3. The terms of the compromise show that at the advice of the elders

and well wishers of the petitioners, they have settled the matter amicably

in view of leading peaceful life of both the parties separately and keeping

in mind the social status and in view of their future, they intended to

compromise with each other and the defacto complainant inclined to

withdraw the police report.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well

as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties

having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant not desires to

proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint memo

has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the proceedings in

F.I.R.No.98 of 2018 on the file of the Vemuru Police Station, Vemuru

Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another1, while

adjudicating the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.] in quashing the

criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute

with the victim of the crime, but the crime in which he is allegedly

involved is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C., it was observed

that -

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat2, this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 IPC, were non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji3 and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras-13-15) :-

"13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

(2012) 12 SCC 401

Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101

highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned.

14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.

15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above."

7. It is further held in the above judgment that -

"61. .......... 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to

continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. In view of the above observations laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another4, with regard to

the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in

relation to non-compoundable offences, and having carefully considered

the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the joint memo

filed by the parties, I am satisfied that the aforesaid compromise is executed

by the parties out of their free will and they confirm the terms thereof, when

being specifically asked, there is no impediment in recording the said

compromise.

9. The applications are accordingly allowed.

CRLP.No.3541 of 2019

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in