HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7374 OF 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is sole accused in Crime No.347 of 2014 of Subedari Police Station, Hanumakonda, Warrangal District, registered for an offence punishable under Sections 354 IPC, filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation in the above crime, on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. The facts in issue are as under :
The petitioner and the first respondent are practicing Advocates. The averments in the report would disclose that on 08.06.2014 the informant went to Warangal to attend the marriage. Since the informant was not aware about the venue of the marriage, she contacted few Advocates regarding the venue who in turn replied that they have already returned from the function. Then she made a call to the petitioner who told her that he was going to marriage and that he will drop her at Ram Gardens. After attending the marriage, the said Shyam Sunder told the informant that he will drop her at the Bus stop. Believing the representation made by him, she got into the Car. When the Car reached the foot over bridge, Hunter road, Warangal, the petitioner is alleged to have stopped the car and touched her hand and shoulders, harassed her, and used un- parliamentary language and misbehaved with her. When she tried to open the door of the car the accused is alleged to have pushed her back and locked the door. When the informant was about to make hue and cry the petitioner is alleged to have threatened her not to shout and further stated that he would drop her at the bus stand. After she got down from the Car at Bus stand the petitioner is alleged to have stated that the dispute between herself and her husband will not be settled without his involvement. He further threatened that if the said fact is revealed he will make allegations against the informant. It is stated that due to disputes between herself and her husband she could not lodge a report on the same day. Basing on these allegations a report came to be lodged on 13.06.2014.
3. Though the present application is filed seeking quashing of investigation on merits, but however the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled the dispute and as such the informant is not interested in prosecuting the case.
4. Along with the present application the petitioner filed Crl.P.M.P. No.11867 of 2014 seeking permission of the court to compound the offence. The affidavit of the second respondent/informant filed in support of the said petition would disclose that at the instance of elders and well-wishers she has settled the matter out of court and has no objection for quashing the proceedings.
5. The petitioner/accused and first respondent/complainant were present before this Court on 24.09.2014 and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined the informant stated that she has settled the matter with the accused and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. In Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and [1] another the Apex Court after referring to all the cases including
[2]
the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh case , held as under :
“ 11. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. In so far as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.
13. Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the Court also described the extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the criminal proceedings in those cases where the parties had settled the matter although the offences are not compoundable. In the first instance it was emphasized that the power under Sec. 482 of the Code is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The Court also highlighted that in different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.
29. (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. ”
6. I n Shiji alias Pappu and others v. Radhika and
[3]
another , the Apex Court observed as under :
“It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.”
7. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB,
[4]
Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and others held as follows :
“Section 482 of the code inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, inter alia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under Section 482 CrPC it must be remembered that continuance of a criminal proceeding which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC.”
[5]
8. 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.”
9. Keeping in view the principles laid down, I shall now proceed to deal with the case on hand.
10. The accused and the informant are Advocates and are known to each other. The averments in the first information report reveal about the acquaintance of the petitioner with the informant and also about the disputes between the informant and her husband, which were being mediated by the petitioner. The offence with which the accused is charged is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life.
11. In view of the Judgments referred to above and taking into consideration the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to go on as the dispute is purely private in nature and not affecting the public at large. Further, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak even if the accused is allowed to face the trial. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the investigation against the petitioner/accused can be quashed by permitting the second respondent/complainant to compound the offence with the accused.
12. Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P.11867 of 2014 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of the investigation in Crime No.347 of 2014 of Subedari Police Station, Warangal District, is allowed.
13. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 10.10.2014
GM
[1] (2014)3 SCC (Cri) 54 [2] (2012)10 SCC 303 [3] (2011)10 SCC 705 [4] (2014)2 SCC (Cri)579
[5]
2012 Crl.L.J.4934