THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2223 Of 2021
COMMON ORDER: -
IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
The applications are filed requesting the Court to permit the 1st
respondent/defacto complainant to compound the offences and record
the compromise entered into by the parties and quash the proceedings
against the petitioner, who is A1 in F.I.R. No.32 of 2021 on the file of
Hindupur II Town Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections
for the offences punishable under sections 384 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(1), 3(1)(s) and 3(1) (g) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 in terms of compromise.
2. Today i.e. on 03.03.2022 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 both sides, they have being neighbours, settled
the matter amicably in view of leading peaceful life and they intended to
compromise with each other.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused as well
as learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/defacto complainant
and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-state.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties,
having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant is not willing to 2
proceed with the matter and in view of the settlement, a joint memo has
been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the proceedings against the
petitioner, who is A1 in F.I.R.No.32 of 2021 on the file of Hindupur II
Town Police Station.
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 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
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 2 (2012) 12 SCC 401 3 Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 3
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 4
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.2223 of 2021
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in
F.I.R. No.32 of 2021 on the file of Hindupur II Town Police Station is
quashed against the petitioner.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 03.03.2022 Pnr
4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2223 of 2022
Dated 03.03.2022
Pnr
