HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Petition No.12004 of 2014 Date:23.09.2014 Between:
Mohd.Zaheer and five others .. Petitioners AND Smt.Sana Fatima, W/o.Mohd.Jaher and another .. Respondents ORDER:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Petition No.12004 of 2014 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2014 on the file of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC.
Along with the present application, the petitioners filed Crl.P.M.P.No.12276 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners- accused 2 to 6 and the first respondent-informant are present and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the first respondent stated that she has settled the dispute with the petitioners including against A1, who is not present before the Court, and is not interested in pursuing the matter.
The affidavit of the first respondent filed along with the petition would disclose that at the instance of their respective counsel, elders and well-wishers, they have settled the matter out of court and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
[1] In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another , the Apex Court held that the power of the High Court in quashing a 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.
The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT V. STATE [2] OF PUNJAB held as under:
“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
Taking into consideration the Judgments of the A pex Court referred to above and the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law as the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.
As seen above, the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused would be an abuse of process of law.
In view of the compromise arrived at, Crl.P.M.P.No.12276 of 2014 is ordered by recording the compromise. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2014 on the file of the Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
23rd September, 2014
Rns
[1] (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
[2] (2008) 4 SCC 582