Shaik Shanu vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 748 Tel

Telangana High Court

Shaik Shanu vs The State Of Telangana on 22 February, 2024

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

                I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023
                        in/and
          CRIMINAL PETITION No.6855 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as the respondent No.2, that during

pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have

compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of

2023 have been filed to record the compromise between them

and to compound the offences.

2. Vide order dated 06.02.2024, this Court directed the

parties along with their respective counsel to appear before the

Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for

the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to

submit a report.

3. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court,

the parties have appeared and the Secretary, High Court Legal

Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitted a

report, dated 08.02.2024 and the same is placed on record.

4. Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent No.1 relied on the para No.16 of the Judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya SKS, J

Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others 1 and prayed the

Court to dismiss the petition and the said para No.16 reads as

follows:

"In so far as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the firearm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all conosidered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eye of the law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused."

5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the injury in the present case is simple injury and

there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC.

6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioners and also the observations made in paragraph

No.14 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and

others reads as follows.

14. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra) is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences

(2019) 5 SCC 688 SKS, J

conferred on a court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded in paragraph 29 as under:

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of SKS, J

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

7. In the present case also the injuries certified by the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are simple injuries in

nature and there are no fire arms used in this case.

8. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023 are allowed.

Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings in F.I.R.No.153 of 2023 on the file of the Mangalhat SKS, J

Police Station, Hyderabad against the petitioners/accused Nos.1

and 2 are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners paying an

amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the

Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings

A/c.No.52188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch

(20070), IFSC Code:SBIN0020070, MICR No.500004057) and

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High

Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two

(02) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the

Registry.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:22.02.2024 NOTE: Registry is directed to upload/supply certified copy of the order only after payment of above said amount.

TU