HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5172 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners, who are A.2 to A.5, filed the present Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No.102 of 2013 of Women Police Station, Begumpet (N/Z), Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 / A.2 and A.3 are in-laws and A.4 and A.5 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the second respondent respectively. The allegations in the complaint would disclose that the marriage of the second respondent (informant) was performed with A.1 on 10.03.2013. Pursuant to the demand made by A.1 to A.5, cash, gold and jahez articles were given at the time of marriage. Subsequently, the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and started harassing the second respondent physically and mentally. Within a short span of three months, the accused harassed the informant which led to filing of the above report against accused Nos.1 to 5.
Along with the present Criminal Petition the petitioners filed Crl.P.M.P. No.4910 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 the elders and wellwishers the matter has been settled amicably and as such she is not interested in proceeding with the case.
The petitioners/A.2 to A.5 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 no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
[1] 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.”
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 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 Crl.P.M.P. No.4910 of 2014 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of investigation in Crime No.102 of 2013 of Women Police Station Begumpet (N/Z), Hyderabad, is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 28.04.2014
usd
[1]
2012 Crl.L.J.4934