CRLP/10128/2011 of Ponnada Girija Sankar Rao (A-1) Vs 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 investigation inCrime No.195 of 2011 of Cheerala I Town Police Station,Prakasham District, registered for the offences punishable underSections 120-B, 403, 406, 408 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

Originally a private complaint was filed against four accusedwhich was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Theallegations in the complaint would disclose that the secondrespondent is a Secretary and Correspondent of Bharathi DegreeCollege and he is also Secretary and Correspondent of BharathiEducational Society, Chirala. The said society was accordedpermission by Nagarjuna Universty and Andhra Pradesh StateCouncil of Higher Education for running degree colleges from theacademic year 2001-2002. It is alleged that the Principal ofBharathi Degree College (Accused No.1) is alleged to havecolluded with other accused and in pursuance of the conspiracy,he alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.40,79,190/-and converted the same for his personal use. Basing on theseallegations, the above case came to be registered.

Pending the above petition, the parties have settled theirdisputes which led to filing of Crl.P.M.P.No.13888 of 2013 seekingpermission of the Court to compound the offences. The affidavit ofthe second respondent filed along with the petition would disclose that at the instance of elders and well-wishers, they have settledthe matter out of court and he has no objection for quashing theproceedings against the accused.

The petitioners and the second respondent were presentbefore the Court and they were identified by their respectivecounsel. When examined, the second respondent/informant whowas the then Secretary of the Society stated that he has settledthe dispute with the petitioners and as such he has no objection forquashing the proceeding. Accused No.3, who is the presentSecretary of the society stated that the society has settled thedispute with the second respondent and seeks closure of the case.

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 in

Conclusion

nature 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 thatcapacity 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 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 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.”

The offence alleged against the petitioners are punishableunder Section 403, 406, 408 and 420 IPC are compoundable underSection 320 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the averments in the chargesheet would clearly indicate that the dispute between the parties ispurely private in nature not affecting the public at large.

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.13888 of 2013 filed forcompounding the offences is ordered. Consequently, the CriminalPetition filed for quashing of investigation in Crime No.195 of 2011of Cheerala I Town Police Station, Prakasham District, is allowed.

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

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

____________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J