Telangana High Court
CRLP/13739/2015 of Marthala Krishna Reddy Vs The State of A.P.,rep.,PP on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13928 and 13929 of 2015 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.13739 of 2015 COMMON ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.327 of 2015 on the file of the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCrl.P.M.P.Nos.13928 and 13929 of 2015ANDCRIMINAL PETITION No.13739 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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.
COMMON ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC toquash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in CrimeNo.327 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Proddatur ITown Police Station, Kadapa District, registered for the offences underSection 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, theAct).
2. Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13928 and 13929 of 2015 are filed to permit thesecond respondent to compromise the matter with the petitioners.
3. The petitioners and the second respondent are present. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel identified the petitioners.
Sri C.Sai Vishnu, learned counsel identified the second respondent.
4. The second respondent in the open court submitted that shevoluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners at the adviceof the village elders. She further submitted that nobody compelled orforced her to enter into compromise with the petitioners. The offenceunder Section 323 IPC is compoundable whereas the offence underSection 3(1)(x) of the Act is non-compoundable.
5. In Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika[[1]], the Supreme Court held as under:
“It is manifest that simply because an offence is notcompoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reasonfor the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised incases where there is no chance of recording a convictionagainst the accused and the entire exercise of a trial isdestined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtledistinction between compounding of offences by the partiesbefore the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecutionunder Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying anaccused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not becompetent to permit compounding of an offence based on asettlement arrived at between the parties in cases where theoffences are not compoundable under Section 320, the HighCourt may quash the prosecution even in cases where theoffences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court underSection 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled bySection 320 CrPC.”
6. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab[[2]], the apex Court observed asunder:
“………….. In this category of cases, High Court may quashcriminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromisebetween the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction isremote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would putaccused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcase despite full and complete settlement and compromisewith the victim. In other words, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justiceto continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of thecriminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process oflaw despite settlement and compromise between the victimand wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it isappropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if theanswer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the HighCourt shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceeding.”
7. Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived atbetween the parties, this court is of the view that even if theproceedings are allowed to continue, the second respondent may notsupport the case of the prosecution. No purpose will be served inkeeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived atbetween the parties.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andalso the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of theconsidered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
9. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13928 and 13929 of 2015 areordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing theproceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.327 of 2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Proddatur I Town PoliceStation, Kadapa District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in thecriminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
December 31, 2015.
YS