Kuncham Ashok vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3205 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9306 & 9307 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

The Criminal Petition No.9306 of 2021 is filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the Judgment dated 19-02-2020 in

S.C.No.269 of 2015 passing by the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge at Nalgonda. The petitioners herein is the accused No.1

to 6 in the said Sessions Case and the offences alleged against

them are under Sections 447, 307, 324, 326 r/w.34 of IPC. Vide

aforesaid Judgment, the trial Court has convicted the petitioner

herein/accused No.1 to 6, and sentenced them to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- each.

2. The Criminal Petition No.9307 of 2021 is filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the Judgment dated 19-02-2020 in

C.C.No.2 of 2017 passing by the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge at Nalgonda. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 in

the said CC and the offences alleged against them are under

Sections 326, 324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. Vide aforesaid Judgment,

the trial Court has convicted the petitioner herein/accused No.2

and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five

years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the

Criminal Petitions would submit that both the petitioners have

preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.19 of 2020 and 20 of 2020

against the aforesaid Judgments respectively. The said

Criminal Appeals are pending. During the pendency of the

said appeals, the parties have entered into compromise and

they sought to set aside the Judgments.

4. As discussed supra, in S.C.No.269 of 2015 one of the

offences is under Section 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.

The said offences would have impact on the society. Even in

C.C.No.2 of 2017, one of the offences is under Section 326 of

Indian Penal Code and the said offence would also have impact

on the society.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance

on the Judgment dated 01-06-2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Crl.App.No.884 of 2022 and 885 of 2022 between

Guhan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police sought to

quash the proceedings in the said SC and CC. Perusal of the

said order of the Supreme Court would reveal that the Hon'ble

Apex Court exercising its powers under Article 142 of

Constitution of India, recorded the compromise and quashed

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused therein.

Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the above decision,

and facts and circumstances of present case are different. The

said decision is of no use to the petitioners herein.

6. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan1 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:

Considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, this Court summarised the following propositions:

(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

Crl.App.No.349 and 350 of 2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05-03-2019

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. (4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but

have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. (9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (9) above.

Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications

which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 9.5 In the case of Manish (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that, when it comes to the question of compounding an offence under Sections 307, 294 and 34 IPC, by no stretch of imagination, can it be held to be an offence as between the private parties simpliciter. It is observed that such offences will have a serious impact on the society at large. It is further observed that where the accused are facing trial under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, as the offences are definitely against the society, accused will have to necessarily face trial and come out unscathed by demonstrating their innocence.

7. As stated supra, some of the offences will have

impact on the society and following the principle laid down in

the above decision, this Court is not inclined to set aside the

aforesaid Judgments by recording the compromise between the

parties. Therefore, both these Criminal Petitions are liable to be

dismissed.

8. Accordingly, both these Criminal Petitions are

dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 01-07-2022 KHRM

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9306 & 9307 OF 2021 Dated: 01-07-2022 KHRM