HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4817 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4, filed the Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No. 186 of 2014 of Chikkadapalli Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
The averments in the report are that, on 07.04.2014, while the informant was returning to his house attending after the birthday function of his friend’s son, the petitioners are alleged to have quarreled with him and started pelting stones at him. Basing on the above allegations, the above crime came to be registered.
Along with the present application, the informant/second respondent filed an affidavit stating that, pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, he is not interested in proceeding with the case and seeks permission of this Court to compound the offence.
The petitioners and the second respondent are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the second respondent stated that he has settled the matter with the accused and 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.”
Taking into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and the fact of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the second respondent who are close friends, 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 of investigation in Crime No. 186 of 2014 of Chikkadapalli Police Station, Hyderabad, is allowed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 21.04.2014
GM
[1]
2012 Crl.L.J.4934