CRLP/15498/2013 of Bachu Vijay KUmar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2013

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seekingquashing of theproceedings in FCMC No.8/2013 on the file of HonourableJudge, Family Court, Karimnagar on the ground that the parties have settledtheir disputes. An application under section 125 Cr.P.C., came to be filedseeking maintenance at the rate ofRs.10,000/- per month.

2. Along with the present petition, the second respondent filedCrl.P.M.P. No.14166/2013 seeking quashing of the proceedings on the groundthat the parties have settled their disputes.

3. The defacto complainant and the petitioner are present in the court andthey were identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the secondrespondent stated that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner andhas no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. Theaffidavit filed by the second respondent would disclose that at the intervention ofwell wishers and the elders, the parties have settled their dispute. Thememorandum of compromise filed along with the criminal petition woulddisclose that the second respondent has agreed for quashment of FCMCNo.8/2013.

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 to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the specialfacts 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.

[3]STATE OF PUNJABheld 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 Though the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., are quasicriminal in nature and could be withdrawn by the second respondent, but inview of the in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this court isof the view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedingsto go on.

8. Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P. No.14166/2013 is ordered. Consequently,the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FCMC No.8/2013 on thefile of Honourable Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar, are hereby quashed.Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Date: 30-12-2013

KMR

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

[1](1988) 1 SCC 692(1988) 1 SCC 692

[2](2012) 10 SCC 303(2012) 10 SCC 303

[3](2008) 4 SCC 582(2008) 4 SCC 582