Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1219 (AP)

V. Ashok Kumar v. State of A. P.

2012-12-06

K.C.BHANU

body2012
ORDER : K.C. Bhanu, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 404 of 2012 if Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 384 IPC and Sections 3 (5), 5 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused aid the second respondent herein is the complainant, in the above crime. Both die parties are present in the Court. They ire identified by their respective counsel. The complainant produced his Diving Licence in proof of his identity. 3. The case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC. The above transaction arose out of a civil dispute between the parties in respect of making a film. The complainant stated that the parties settled the matter amicably at the instance of elders and he voluntarily agreed for compromise, and in view of the settlement, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. He filed Crl.P.M.P.No. 8222 of 2012 praying to record the compromise and quash the impugned proceedings. 4. The offence punishable under Section 384 IPC is not compoundable. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (1) 2012 (9) SCALE 257 , it is held thus: (para 57) `The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted 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 power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. However, before exercise of such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission to compound the offence. In view of compromise, the chance of conviction is bleak and remote. Therefore, in view of the compromise between the parties, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and there is no impediment to quash the impugned proceedings. In view of compromise, the chance of conviction is bleak and remote. Therefore, in view of the compromise between the parties, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court and there is no impediment to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition and Crl.P.M.P. No. 8222 of 2012 are allowed quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioner. Other Miscellaneous Petitions pending in the Criminal Petition are dismissed.