Aqueel Ahmed v. Sikender Hussain

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Crl.P.MP.Nos.174 and 175 of 2017 in/and ORDER:

Crl.P.No.151 of 2017 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.485 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506 of IPC r/w. Section 149 of IPC.

2.

Now, these Crl.P.MP.Nos.174 and 175 of 2017 in Crl.P.No.151 of 2017 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., are filed by the 1st respondent - complainant to permit him to compound the offences with the petitioners/A.1 to A.6 by allowing the above Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners against C.C.No.485 of 2016.

3.

The defacto-complainant and the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 to 6 appeared in person before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel, besides furnishing photostat copies of Adhar Card in proof of their identification and voluntarily stated that they entered into compromise and settled the dispute.

4.

In fact, the offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections are not compoundable offences with or without the leave of this Court. However, in the interest of both the

parties, as the petitioner and the defacto-complainant are neighbours and want to lead a peaceful life in future by compromising the matter without any terms and conditions, it is a fit case to grant permission to compound the offences by following the principles laid down in GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.1, wherein it was held as follows:

"....... 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 F.I.R 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. 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 flavour 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.

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."

5.

When the compromise is voluntary and in the interest of both parties, being neighbours, and not having any societal impact, this Court can exercise power under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

6.

Accordingly, permission is accorded and Crl.P.MP.Nos.174 and 175 of 2017 are allowed. 7.

In view of the order passed in Crl.P.MP.Nos.174 and 175 of 2017, Crl.P.No.151 of 2017 is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.485 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 8.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 06.01.2017.

Msr

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Crl.P.MP.Nos.174 and 175 of 2017 in/and 06.01.2017 Msr