Patan Farook Khan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1515 AP

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.2131 of 2022

ORDER:-

      The petitioners are alleged to be accused in C.C.No.2720/2021 on

the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile,

Nellore, SPSR Nellore District for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A,

506, 312, 420, 493, 496, 323, r/w 34 IPC and sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act (1st petitioner being A1 who is presently in Australia being

represented by Patan Moin Khan who is his brother), on the complaint

given by the 2nd respondent alleging that A1, in the rented room of 2nd

respondent at Hyderabad, exchanged rings and he tied black beads chain

around her neck and had sexual intercourse with her many a times as a

result of which she became pregnant and A1 directed the 2nd respondent

to undergo abortion as it was not possible to go to Australia if she gave

birth to a child. After that A2 and A3 harassed her that she did not bring

any dowry and A1 also changed his attitude and neglected her. For

which the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint in the Disha police station,

Nellore, against the petitioners vide Crime No.189/2020 and after

investigation the Disha police, Nellore filed charge sheet before the

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore, SPSR

Nellore District and taken cognizance and numbered as

C.C.No.2720/2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached

this court to quash the proceedings, under Section 482 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

2. After issuing notice, in view of the compromise memo filed by both

the parties stating that they have entered into a compromise and seeking

permission to compound the offence and to quash the proceeding

initiated against the petitioners in the above said case number, this

Court directed for appearance of both the parties and the Station House

Officer of Disha police station, Nellore or any responsible Officer from the

said Police Station to identify the parties, on 28.3.2022.

3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 28.3.2022 both parties

present in person and the Station House Officer, Disha Police Station

appeared before this Court, the identity of the parties has been verified.

The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that recently they

have settled the issue before the elders and she has no interest to

prosecute the accused and she has no objection to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

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

as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that both

parties entered into compromise by the intervention of elders and 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 the proceedings in C.C.No.2720/2021 on the file of the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile, Nellore, SPSR Nellore

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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

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 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

(2012) 12 SCC 401

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

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, permission is granted to compound the offence and

compromise is recorded.

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

C.C.No.2720/2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Mobile, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, is hereby quashed

against the petitioners/accused.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 28.3.2022 RD

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2131 of 2022 Dated 28.3.2022

RD