Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1558 (AP)

Moghal Shaik Shavali v. P. Rama Krishna Rao

2014-12-24

T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

body2014
ORDER T. Sunil Chowdary, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 1401 of 2014 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C. Crl. P. M.P. Nos. 16664 and 16665 of 2014 are filed by the second respondent to permit him to compromise the matter with the petitioner and consequently quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner/accused and the second respondent are present. Mr. Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner identified the petitioner. Mrs. M. Anitha, learned Counsel for the second respondent identified the second respondent. 3. The second respondent i.e., the de facto complainant, in the open Court, submitted that he voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner. It seems that at the advice of the elders and well-wishers, the parties have compromised the matter. The offence under Section 338 I.P.C. is compoundable and the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is non-compoundable. 4. In Shiji alias Pappu v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 , the Supreme Court held as under: "It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320Cr.P.C." 5. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320Cr.P.C." 5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the apex Court observed as under: ".......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." 6. Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution. No purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra and the decision in Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 1 SCC 711 , I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. In the result, Crl. P MP Nos. 16664 and 16665 of 2014 are ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 1401 of 2014 of Banjara Hills Police Station. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed. Petition allowed