Sadik v. The State Of A.P

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.Nos.5952 & 5953 of 2017 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5866 of 2017 COMMON ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.34 of 2016 on the file of Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

Crl.P.M.P.No.5952 of 2017 is filed to permit the second respondent to compound the offence and Crl.P.M.P.No.5953 of 2017 is filed to permit the second respondent to compromise the matter with the petitioner.

Sri Shaik Karimulla learned counsel identified the petitioner. Sri S.S.Prakash, learned counsel identified the second respondent. The second respondent submitted in the open court that he voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner at the advice of elders. He further submitted that nobody compelled or forced him to enter into compromise with the petitioner. The offence under Section 304-A of IPC is non-compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the ratio laid down by this Court in Moghal Shaik Shavali v. P. Rama Krishna Rao1 and Pudi Anjelamma v. Ramesh Chandra Panda2 and submitted that the offence under Section 304-A of IPC can be compounded.

1 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 703 2 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 602

In Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika3, the Supreme Court held as under:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. 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 CrPC 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 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC."

".............. 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."

Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, this court is 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 3 (2011) 10 SCC 705 4 (2012) 10 SCC 303

in keeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.Nos.5952 and 5953 of 2017 are ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.34 of 2016 on the file of Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

20th July, 2017.

Kvsn