This Criminal Petition vs Magistrate Of First Class Court( ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1693 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1693 AP
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

This Criminal Petition vs Magistrate Of First Class Court( ... on 27 March, 2023

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

                     I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2023
                               in/and
                 Criminal Petition No.2294 of 2023

Common Order:

      This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has

been filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.1607 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court( Mobile Court), Ananthapuramu,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 337 and

304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.    It is represented that both the parties have settled the

dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their

elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived

between both the parties, they filed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2023

seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record

the compromise.

4.    Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioner and

2nd respondent herein are present before this Court. Learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

2nd respondent have identified both the parties in the open

Court. This Court has questioned the de facto complainant

with regard to compromise and he has categorically stated to

that extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise

with the accused.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,1 the Hon‟ble

Apex court held thus: (para 57)

"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 or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 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 favour 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

2012 (9) Scale 257

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."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh2. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

"19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences „compoundable‟ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;

(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior

2021 SCC Online SC 834

to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

7. It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission

to compound the offence. This Court is satisfied with the

identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the

compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties,

continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse

of process of Court.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings in C.C.No.1607 of 2022 on the file of the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court (Mobile Court),

Ananthapuramu, against the petitioner herein are hereby

quashed.

9. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are allowed.