CRLP/14920/2013 of Mohd. Anwar Siddiqui Vs The State, on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is A-8 filed the present application underSection 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation in Cr.No.100 of 2013 of Korutla Police Station, Karimnagar District,registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and506 read with 34 IPC on the ground of compromise arrived at betweenthe parties.

2. The 2[nd] respondent herein, who is a Reporter of JanamSakshi daily news paper lodged a report stating that on 27.03.2013 atabout 6.30 p.m. there was some altercation with the S.I. of Police,Kathalapur, while he was performing law order duty at Meena Masjid. On noticing the incident the 2[nd] respondent proceeded to the saidscene to cover the said incident. On seeing the 2[nd] respondent, oneAyyub Khan and his followers attacked the 2[nd] respondent with stonesand damaged his Nikon photo camera. Due to which he sustained aloss of Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused threatenedthe 2[nd] respondent with dire consequences if he publish the incident inthe news paper. Basing on these allegations, the above case came tobe registered.

3. On 13.12.2013 the 2[nd] respondent and the petitioner werepresent before this Court and they are identified by their respectivecounsel. When examined, the 2[nd] respondent stated that he has noobjection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner who isalso a Reporter.

4. On 13.12.2013, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tooktime to find out as to whether the prosecution case would get effected if the petitioner/A-8 was allowed to compromise the matter. Today whenthe matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor represented that she has no objection for permitting the 2[nd]respondent to compound the offence with the petitioner/A-8.

5. Along with the present application the 2[nd] respondent filedCrl.P.M.P. No. 13391 of 2013 seeking permission of the court tocompound the offence. The affidavit of the respondent filed in supportof the said petition would disclose that the 2[nd] respondent did notlodge any report against the petitioner herein and that he is notinterested in prosecuting the case against the petitioner. He states thathe has no objection for quashing the proceedings against thepetitioner. A joint memo signed by both the parties is also filed.

6. In GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB[[1]], the Apex Courtobserved that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if inits view, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak andcontinuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppressionand prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by notquashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement andcompromise with the victim.

7. In MADHAVARAO J. SCINDIA V. SAMBHAJIRAO C.ANGRE[[2]]the Supreme Court held as under:

"The legal position is well settled that when aprosecution at the initial stage is asked to bequashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as towhether the uncontroverted allegations as madeprima facie establish the offence. It is also for theCourt to take into consideration any special featureswhich appear in a particular case to considerwhether it is expedient and in the interest of justice topermit a prosecution to continue. This is so on thebasis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of theCourt chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and,therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served byallowing a criminal prosecution to continue, theCourt may while taking into consideration the specialfacts of a case also quash the proceeding eventhough it may be at a preliminary stage."

8. The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT LV. STATEOF PUNJAB[[3]]held as under:

“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisablethat in disputes where the question involved is of apurely personal nature, the Court should ordinarilyaccept the terms of the compromise even in criminalproceedings as keeping the matter alive with nopossibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is aluxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened asthey are, cannot afford and that the time so saved canbe utilized in deciding more effective and meaningfullitigation. This is a common sense approach to thematter based on ground of realities and bereft of thetechnicalities of the law.”

9. As seen above, the police registered a case for the offencespunishable under Sections 324, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Thefirst information report only refers to the name of one Md. Ayyub as anaccused. There is no reference to the name of the petitioner in the firstinformation report. Further, the offences punishable under Sections427 and 506 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. Evenaccepting the averments in the report to be true, ingredientsconstituting an offence under Section 324 IPC are not made outagainst the petitioner, as there is no allegation that the petitioner beatthe informant. The remand report which has been filed along with thepresent application would show that A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-9 werearrested and released on bail. The remand report dated 25.06.2013 isalso silent with regard to the role attributed to the petitioner/A-8.

10. In view of the Judgments referred to above and taking intoconsideration the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties,this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served inallowing the proceedings to go on as the dispute is purely private innature and as the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Further, the affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent would clearly disclose thathe never lodged a report against the petitioner and as such he wantsto withdraw the case against the petitioner alone. In view of thecompromise arrived at between the parties, the investigation againstthe petitioner/A8 can be quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P.13391 of 2013 is ordered.Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of theinvestigation in Cr. No.100 of 2013 of Korutla Police Station,Karimnagar District, is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any inthis criminal petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

Date: 30.12.2013GM

[1](2012) 10 SCC 303(2012) 10 SCC 303

[2](1988) 1 SCC 692(1988) 1 SCC 692

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