Habeeb Ur Rahman v. Ayesha Siddiqua

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13503 and 13504 of 2016 and Criminal Petition No.12138 of 2016 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.234 of 2014 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in view of settlement and compromise between the parties and de facto-complainant and petitioners/accused had resolved all their disputes and differences. 2.

The 1st Respondent - De facto-complainant filed Crl.P.M.P.No.13503 of 2016 seeking to quash the proceedings pending against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.234 of 2014 and petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed Crl.P.M.P.No.13504 of 2016 seeking permission of the Court to file a petition to compound the offences.

3.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the 1st respondent/de facto-complainant and petitioners/accused are present and are identified by their respective counsel. They also produced the xerox copies of their Identity Cards. It is submitted by both parties that at the intervention of the elders, the parties have amicably settled

their disputes concerning the present case, hence compromise may be recorded and criminal proceedings in the above case may be quashed. 4.

In Yogendra Yadav and others v. the State of Jharkhand1 the Supreme Court, in the matter of compromise of a non-compoundable offence, held as under:

"The question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC, which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab {(2012) 10 SCC 303}). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

Offences, which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about 1 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.)

peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

5.

Having regard to the above submission and considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled the disputes among themselves out of Court and no useful purpose will be served even if the parties are driven to the trial as they compromised, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another2 the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and compromise is recorded. 6.

Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13503 and 13504 of 2016 and the Criminal Petition are allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.234 of 2014 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

__________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J.

21st September, 2016 skmr 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303