Smt Cheruku Karunasree vs The State Of A.P. Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3314 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY


                    I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

                             In/and

                     Crl.P.No.4865 of 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is accused filed this

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings in FIR No.122 of 2013 on the file of the I Town

Police Station, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District for the

offences punishable under Sections 209, 417, 420 and 468 of IPC.

2. During pendency of the Criminal Petition, the parties have

compromised the matter and accordingly, respondent No.2-

de facto complainant has filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 to permit

him to enter into compromise, record the terms of compromise

thereof and compound the offences by quashing the proceedings

against accused in the said crime. Along with the said

applications, 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. In the affidavit filed it has

been stated that respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has filed

a complaint against the petitioner /accused before the Police

Station and the same has been registered as FIR No.122 of 2013

for the aforesaid offence. While so, now the de facto complainant

has entered into compromise with the accused and approached

this Court for recording the compromise with the

petitioner/accused and they have settled the matter outside the

Court and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings

against the petitioner.

3. 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 and well wishers of both the parties, they have

settled the matter out of the Court and the second respondent

stated that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings

against the petitioner.

4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, the Apex

Court held that the power of the High Court in quashing a

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

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 flavour 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 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 proceedings.

5. Taking into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court

referred to above and the fact of settlement arrived at between the

parties, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are allowed. Consequently, the

Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.122

of 2013 on the file of the I Town Police Station, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District, are hereby quashed against the

petitioner/accused.

6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 04.07.2022

Tssb/nvl

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

In/and

Crl.P.No.4865 of 2013 Tssb

04.07.2022