Kannuri Karthik v. The State Of Ap.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.No.1063 of 2016 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.800 of 2016 COMMON ORDER:
1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.299 of 2014 on the file of Station House Officer, Bommuru Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Crl.P.M.P.No.1063 of 2016 is filed to permit second respondent-de facto complainant to compromise the matter with the petitioners.
3. The father of the 2nd respondent filed General Power of Attorney seeking permission of the Court to permit him to represent the 2nd respondent and he filed an affidavit to that effect. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the father -cum- GPA holder of the 2nd respondent are present. Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel identified the petitioners. Sri T.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel identified the father of the 2nd respondent.
4. The father and the GPA holder of the 2nd respondent in the open Court submitted that his daughter i.e. the 2nd respondent voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners at the advice of the elders. He further submitted that nobody compelled or forced either him or the 2nd respondent to enter into compromise with the petitioners. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court whereas the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable.
5. In Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika[1], 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 noncompoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC."
6. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab[2], 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."
7. 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 in keeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. 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 opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
9. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.No.1063 of 2016 is ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.299 of 2014 on the file of Station House Officer, Bommuru Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
Date: 5th February, 2016 Kvsn [1] (2011) 10 SCC 705 [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303