Manish Bansal vs Kumari T.Swathi Priya
2021 Latest Caselaw 527 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.126 of 2021

ORDER :

This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.11088 of 2020 pending on the file of III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Petitioners

herein are A-1 to A-4. The offences alleged against the petitioners

herein are under Sections 354, 323, 427, 506 of IPC and under Section

30 of Arms Act.

2. The allegations against the petitioners herein in the charge sheet

are that LW-1/victim girl and LW-2 are friends. On 14.07.2020 at

00.40 hours, LW-1 proceeded to the residence of LW-2 situated at J.J.

Hospital, Kalyan Nagar in her car bearing No.AP-09-CS-6990, and

waited for LW-2 to pick her up into her car. Accordingly, LW-1

parked her car near Siddartha Nagar, since there is no parking place at

the residence of LW-2. While LW-1 was waiting for LW-2 to pick

her up, A-1 and A-3 came to LW-1 from the road and whistled at her

with abusive signs. They also abused her in filthy language. In the

meanwhile, A-2 came to LW-1, showed his pistol to her and

threatened her with dire consequences. A-2 also questioned LW-1 as

to the purpose of her coming there. Thereafter, LW-1 informed to

accused that she came there only to pick up her friend LW-2. Without

listening to the same, accused have attacked LW-1 with hands and

punched on her face. When LW-1 tried to record the incident with her

i-phone, A-4 came there, dragged the phone from LW-1 and hit it to

the ground, as a result, the said phone completely got damaged.

LW-1, with fear, left the said place. A-1 and A-2 also broke the rear

glass of LW-1's car with their hand armlet. Thus, the accused have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 427, 506

of IPC and under Section 30 of Arms Act.

3. During the pendency of this criminal petition, the petitioners

and respondent No.1 have filed applications seeking permission of this

Court to compound the offences alleged against them and to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.11088 of 2020 on the ground that they have

settled the dispute with de facto complainant. They filed joint memo

of compromise and also affidavits.

4. This court, vide order dated 03.02.2021, directed the parties to

appear before the Registrar (Judicial-I) for the purpose of their

identification. Accordingly, the parties have appeared before the

Registrar, who in turn, after completion of identification, filed his

report.

5. In the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in her compromise

application, she has stated that the wife of 2nd petitioner herein has

also filed a case against her at S.R.Nagar Police Station, which was

registered as Crime No.528 of 2020. After completion of

investigation and filing of charge sheet in the said crime, it was taken

cognizance as C.C.No.7688 of 2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 427, 323 and 506 of IPC. Both the complaints relate to the

same incident. As she is working in I.T. Sector, on the advice of

elders and well-wishers, she does not intend to prosecute the

petitioners/accused with regard to the said incident. It is further stated

in the affidavit that there was no firing and the incident occurred due

to heated arguments. With the said averments, the 1st respondent

sought to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor, by referring to the parameters laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in The State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & others1, would submit that

there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein. Petitioner

No.2 has used his pistol and the offence alleged is under Section 30 of

Arms Act. There are allegations of making whistles and abusive signs

towards respondent No.1 by A-1 and A-3. A-2 has threatened

respondent No.1 with his pistol and A-4 damaged the i-phone of

respondent No.1 by hitting it to the ground.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra),

held that the power conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences

under Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by overwhelmingly and

predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or

family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire disputes

2019 (5) SCC 403

amongst themselves. Such power is not to be exercised in those

prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are

not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. The

offences under Section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in

the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be

treated as crime against the society and not against the individual

alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offences under

Section 307 of IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious

impact on the society, cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that the parties have resolved

the entire disputes amongst themselves.

8. It was further held that while exercising the power under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-

compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a

serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a

settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High

Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused, the

conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding

and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the

complainant to enter into a compromise etc.

9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, more

particularly the parametres stated supra, coming to the facts on hand,

as stated above, prima facie, there are serious allegations against all

the accused herein. A-1 and A-3 whistled at 1st respondent/de facto

complainant with abusive signs, A-2 threatened the 1st respondent by

showing his pistol, A-4 dragged the i-phone from the hands of 1st

respondent while she was recording the incident and damaged it by

hitting to the ground and further, A-1 and A-2 broke the rear glass of

the car of 1st respondent with the help of hand armlet. Thus, there are

serious allegations of outraging the modesty of 1st respondent by

whistles with abusive signs and threatening her with pistol.

10. Sri K. Surender, learned counsel for petitioners, by referring to

the contents of the charge sheet, would submit that A-2 is having

license to use the pistol and the said license is valid up to 22.10.2021.

Therefore, according to him, the facts of the present case will not fall

under the category of offences which are serious in nature and which

will have serious impact on the society. By referring to the same,

learned counsel for petitioners would submit that it is a fit case to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11088 of 2020 pending on the file of

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in view of

the compromise between the petitioners and the 1st respondent.

11. As discussed above, just because the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is

having license to use his weapon, he shall not use the same for

threatening the 1st respondent. He has to use the same in accordance

with the terms of license. Therefore, the contention of the learned

counsel for petitioners that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is having license to

use the weapon, therefore, the allegations levelled against him will not

fall under the category of serious offences as referred by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan's case (supra), cannot be accepted.

12. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court and also the discussion supra, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11088 of 2020 pending on the file of

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

Accordingly, this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed and it is

accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

Date: 24.02.2021 ajr