Telangana High Court
CRLP/15499/2013 of Bachu Vijay Kumar, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P No.15499/2013 and Crl.P.M.P No.14165/2013 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by A -1 to A -4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.87/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, which was taken
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMARCrl.PNo.15499/2013and Crl.P.M.PNo.14165/2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by A-1 to A-4 under Section 482Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.87/2012 on the file ofJudicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, which was taken on file for theoffences punishable under section 498-A and sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.
2. Along with the present petition, the defacto complainant/secondrespondent filed Crl.P.M.P. No.14165/2013 seeking permission of the court forcompounding the offences. The affidavit of the second respondent filed alongwith the said petition would disclose that at the intervention of well wishers andthe elders, the parties have settled their dispute.
3. The defacto complainant and the petitioners are present in the courtand they were identified by their respective counsel. When examined, thesecond respondent stated that she has compromised the matter with thepetitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against thepetitioners.
4. The Supreme Court in MADHAVARAO J. SCINDIA V.
SAMBHAJIRAO C. ANGRE[[1]]held as under:
"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initialstage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is asto whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facieestablish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into considerationany special features which appear in a particular case to considerwhether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit aprosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannotbe utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Courtchances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no usefulpurpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution tocontinue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at apreliminary stage."
5. In GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB[[2]], the Apex Courtobserved that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminalcase would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite fulland complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
6. The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT V.STATE OF PUNJAB[[3]]held as under:
“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that indisputes where the question involved is of a purely personalnature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of thecompromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matteralive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is aluxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are,cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized indeciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is acommon sense approach to the matter based on ground ofrealities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”
7. Taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex Courtreferred to above, and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties,this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in allowingthe proceedings to go on. Even if the trial is allowed to go on, the secondrespondent herein may not support the case even. In that view of the matter,since conviction of the petitioners appears to be bleak even if the petitioners areallowed to face the trial, continuation of proceedings in CC No.87/2012 on thefile of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet, would be an abuse of process oflaw.
8. Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P. No.14165/2013 is ordered. Consequently,the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No.87/2012 on the fileof Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sdidipet, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneouspetitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 30-12-2013KMR
-----------------------------------C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
[1](1988) 1 SCC 692[2](2012) 10 SCC 303[3](2008) 4 SCC 582