HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4782 OF 2014 ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation in Crime No.351 of 2013 of Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. The contents of the report would disclose that the marriage of the second respondent/informant was performed with the petitioner on 28.11.2009 and the said marriage was love marriage. Subsequently, disputes arose between the informant and accused which led to filing of the above case against the petitioner.
3. Along with the present application the petitioner filed Crl.P.M.P. No.4457 of 2014 seeking permission of the court to compound the offence. The affidavit of the second respondent filed in support of the said petition would disclose that at the intervention of elders and wellwishers the matter has been settled and as such she is not interested in prosecuting the matter against the accused. A joint memo signed by both the parties is also filed.
4. The petitioner/accused and the second respondent are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined the second respondent stated that she has settled the matter with the accused and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the accused.
[1]
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. , the Apex Court while dealing with the power of the High Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code held as under :-
“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 of 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 predominatingly 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.”
6. The material on record would disclose that the dispute is a fall out of a marital discord between the second respondent and accused. Taking into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and the fact of settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution. No useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to go on. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and taking into consideration the nature of offence with which the petitioner is charged, I am of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of the investigation in Crime No.351 of 2013 of Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District, is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 22.04.2014
GM
[1]
2012 Crl.L.J.4934