CRLP/15494/2013 of Mohd. Abdul Mudasser Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of all furtherproceedings in C.C.No.299 of 2012 on the file of the VIII AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A charge sheet cameto be filed against the petitioner for an offence punishable underSection 324 IPC.

The allegations in the charge sheet would disclose that on14.10.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. while the second respondent wasproceeding towards his house and when he reached near SanjaryFunction Hall, Mirchowk, the petitioner stopped the secondrespondent and asked to give Rs.500/-. When he refused to givethe money, the petitioner searched the pockets of secondrespondent and took Rs.500/- from his pocket. In that process analtercation took place between the second respondent and thepetitioner, upon which the petitioner picked up a stick from a nearby place and beat the second respondent. Due to which thesecond respondent received injuries on his nose, eye and otherparts of the body. Basing on the above allegations the abovecase came to be registered.

Along with the present Criminal Petition, the secondrespondent filed Crl.P.M.P.No.13881 of 2013 seeking permissionof the Court to compound the offence.

The affidavit of the second respondent filed along with thepetition would disclose that at the instance of elders and well- wishers, they have settled the matter out of court and he has noobjection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

Today the petitioner and the second respondent-informantare present before the Court and they are identified by theirrespective counsel. When examined, the second respondentstated that he has settled the dispute with the petitioner and is notinterested in pursuing the matter.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[[1]], the Apex Court held that the power of the High Court in quashing acriminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherentjurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to acriminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 ofthe Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutorylimitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelineengrafted 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 powerto quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may beexercised where the offender and victim have settled their disputewould depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and nocategory can be prescribed. However, before exercise of suchpower, the High Court must have due regard to the nature andgravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mentaldepravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot befittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and theoffender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private innature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, anycompromise between the victim and offender in relation to theoffences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants while working in that

Procedure

capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminalproceedings involving such offences. But the criminal caseshaving overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand ondifferent footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly theoffences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out ofmatrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where thewrong is basically private or personal in nature and the partieshave resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, HighCourt may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because ofthe compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal casewould put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal casedespite full and complete settlement and compromise with thevictim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether itwould be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continuewith the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminalproceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer andwhether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminalcase is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) isin affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction toquash the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT V. STATE

OF PUNJAB[[2]]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 criminal proceedings 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 savedcan be utilized in deciding more effective andmeaningful litigation. This is a common senseapproach to the matter based on ground of realitiesand bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

Though the offence is non-compoundable, but a perusal ofthe averments in the charge sheet would clearly indicate that thedispute between the parties is purely private in nature and notaffecting the public at large. It cannot be said that the petitioner ischarged with a heinous crime.

Taking into consideration the Judgments of the Apex Courtreferred to above and the fact of compromise arrived at betweenthe parties, this Court is of the view that continuation of theproceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process oflaw as the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. For theaforesaid reasons, the second respondent can be permitted tocompound the offence.

Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P.No.13881 of 2013 filed forcompounding the offence is ordered. Consequently, the CriminalPetition filed for quashing all further proceedings in C.C.No.299 of2012 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingshall stand closed.

____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

30.12.2013

gkv

[1](2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

[2](2008) 4 SCC 582(2008) 4 SCC 582