THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9974 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, which was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 r/w 34 IPC, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
The informant/second respondent is none other than the son-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is the brother-in-law, 3rd petitioner is co-brother of the informant and 4th petitioner is a distant relative of petitioners 1 and 2. It is stated that because of matrimonial disputes between the daughter of the 2nd petitioner and second respondent herein, a false case has been foisted.
Both the parties are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the informant/ second respondent stated that he has settled the matter with the accused; and is not interested in pursuing the matter. It is now stated that the daughter of the 2nd petitioner and the informant have settled their disputes and both of them are living together. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the informant wants to withdraw the present case. He further stated that he has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
[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 OF PUNJAB[2] 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.”
The material on record would disclose that the dispute is a fallout of a marital discord between the daughter of the 2nd petitioner and the second respondent. Taking into consideration the Judgments 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 petitioners are charged, I am of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the Criminal petition filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 14.08.2014 ksm
[1] (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
[2] (2008) 4 SCC 582