Yarragolla Sudhakar vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3991 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3991 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2021

Telangana High Court

Yarragolla Sudhakar vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 30 November, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                        I.A.No.3 of 2021
                             In/and
               CRIMINAL PETITION No.8613 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is the sole accused in P.R.C.No.66 of

2020 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Kukatpally, filed this Criminal Petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above P.R.C. A charge

sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 448, 427, 307, 323 and 506 of I.P.C.

Along with the Criminal Petition, I.A.No.3 of 2021 came to

be filed by the second respondent to record the compromise. Along

with the petition, a joint memo which is signed by the parties and

their counsel, photographs of the parties and Photostat copies of

their Aadhar Cards came to be filed. It is stated in the affidavit

that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties

have settled their disputes.

Today, both the parties are present before this Court and

they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court, when

examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the

elders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the

second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings

against the petitioner.

Recently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan1,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments,

held as under:

"i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having 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 dispute amongst themselves;

ii) 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;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 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 offence under Section 307 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 the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake

AIR 2019 SC 1296

of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code 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."

Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider

that whether instant cases are fit cases to quash the criminal

proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the

parties.

In the case at hand, though the case was registered for the

offences under Sections 448, 427, 307, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., now

the petitioner and the second respondent have amicably settled

their matrimonial disputes and the second respondent is not

interested in prosecuting the case. In view of the compromise

between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also remote

and bleak. In the above circumstances, continuity of the criminal

proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the