CRLP/9558/2012 of G. Rama Murthy Sharma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as A.3in Crime No.51 of 2012 of Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad, registered forthe offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC, seeking toquash the proceedings against him.

2. The 2[nd] respondent-de facto complainant is present and sheproduced her Identity card issued by her employer viz., Ministry of Defence,which shows her identity. She is also identified by her counsel. She statedthat at the intervention of the elders, the matter has been settled out of Courtamicably and she has no objection to quash the proceedings against thepetitioner-A.3.

3. Serious offences are levelled against A.1 and A.2 for the offencespunishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. Insofar as thepresent petitioner/A.3 is concerned, there is no allegation attracting any oneof the offences alleged. He was not shown as an accused initially. The defacto complainant suspects the involvement of the petitioner. Exceptsuspicion, there is no other incriminating material against the petitioner.

4. No doubt, some of the offences alleged are not compoundable. InGIAN SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[[1]], wherein it was held thus (para 57):

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can besummarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminalproceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction isdistinct and different from the power given to a criminal court forcompounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherentpower is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to beexercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) tosecure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of anyCourt. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding orcomplaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim havesettled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances ofeach case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exerciseof such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature andgravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity oroffences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed eventhough the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled thedispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impacton society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offenderin relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants whileworking in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashingcriminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal caseshaving overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand ondifferent footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offencesarising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or suchlike transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating todowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private orpersonal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. Inthis category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if inits view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, thepossibility 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 casedespite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. Inother words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair orcontrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedingor continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law 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 the answer to theabove question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

5. It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission tocompound the offence. In view of compromise, the chance of conviction isbleak and remote. Therefore, in view of the compromise between theparties, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse ofprocess of Court and there is no impediment to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner/A.3.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing theproceedings against the petitioner-A.3 only in Crime No.51 of 2012 ofKeesara Police Station, Cyberabad District. Miscellaneous petitionspending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

31.12.2012

Vjl

______________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU