Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Criminal Procedure vs We Are Also Of The View That There ... on 5 May, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6455 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking
quash of F.I.R. in Crime No.407/2017 of Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam District, in so far as petitioners/A1 and A2 are
concerned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that basing on the
complaint dated 22.11.2019, the Gajuwaka Police, Visakhapatnam
District have registered a case in Crime No.410/2019 under
Section 420, 468, 471 r/w 120b IPC against the petitioners/A1
and A2. Learned counsel contended that without going into the
merits of the case, subsequently the petitioners had settled the
entire amount with the 2nd respondent under one time settlement
(OTS) scheme. The said fact was also not disputed by the counsel
appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent.
4. Further learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a
judgment reported in between Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Ors1 wherein it is recited that:
Having carefully considered the singular facts and
circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the
continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the
accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an
amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view
taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this
Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial
restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the
view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on
the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a
2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 981
compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the
accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an
exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately,
it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of
the parties.
In view of the discussion we made in the preceding
paragraphs, in our opinion, it would be proper to keep the said point
of law open. However, in the given facts, we dismiss this appeal.
In another judgment reported in between C.B.I., New Delhi
vs. B.B.Agarwal and Ors.2 wherein it is recited that:
The High Court was of the view that on resettlement of
accounts, the parties obtained the consent decree from DRT and
paid the entire sum, therefore, there is no live issue, which now
survives. The High Court then examined the question as to whether
the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to
continue on its merits. After examining this issue with reference to
charges and documents, the High Court held that no criminality
issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case
between the parties.
We are also of the view that there arises no occasion to
prosecute the respondents as was rightly held by the High Court
while quashing the criminal case against the respondents.
By following the above two judgments and also the orders by
this Court in Crl. Petition No.277 of 2019 and batch in quashing
the criminal proceedings, learned counsel pray to quash the crime
registered against the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the criminal
petition is allowed and the F.I.R.No.407/2017 of Gajuwaka police
station, Visakhapatnam District is quashed against the
petitioners/A1 and A2.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal
Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 05.5.2022
RD
2019(2) ALT (Crl.) 333(A.P)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6455 OF 2021
Dated 05.5.2022
RD
