HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.M.P.No. 9731 of 2014 and Crl.P.No. 9882 of 2014 O R D E R:-
This petition is filed by the petitioners - A1 to A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.139 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, Medak District, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Along with the present Criminal Petition, the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant filed Crl.P.M.P.No. 9731 of 2014 seeking permission to compound the offence with the accused in view of the compromise arrived between the parties.
3. The affidavit of the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant filed in support of the said petition would disclose that at the intervention of elders and well wishers both the parties have settled their disputes and the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner – A1 are living together with the children at Toopran, as such, she is not interested in prosecuting the matter against the accused.
4. The 2nd respondent and the accused are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined the 2nd respondent stated that she has settled the matter with the accused and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
[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. 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.”
6. Taking into consideration the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties and as the offences with which the accused is charged are purely matrimonial in nature, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, as the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and taking into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners - A1 to A3 can be quashed by permitting the second respondent to compound the offence with the accused.
7. Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P.No.9731 of 2014 filed for compounding the offences is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.139 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, Medak District, is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
13.08.2014
bcj
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
[1]
2012 Crl.L.J.4934