Muppala Sai Sujith v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.P.M.P.No.13130 of 2016 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.11800 of 2016 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed under Section Cr.P.C.

to quash proceedings in C.C.No.391/2015 pending on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his counsel are present. The petitioner/A1 and his counsel are also present.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Basing on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the above case is registered.

It is submitted by both parties that at the stage of investigation of the above crime, at the intervention of the elders, they have amicably settled their disputes concerning to the present case and hence compromise may be recorded and criminal proceedings in the above case may be quashed.

In Yogendra Yadav and others v. the State of Jharkhan[1] 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 IPC, which are noncompoundable. Needless to say that offences which are noncompoundable 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 offences are noncompoundable. 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 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 compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

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 i n Gian Singh v.

State of Punjab and another[2] the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and compromise is recorded, and consequently, proceedings in C.C.No.391/2015

pending on file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, are hereby quashed, only against petitioner/A1.

The proceedings against the remaining accused may go on.

The Crl.P.MP.No.13130 of 2016 and Crl.P.No.11800 of 2016 are accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 10th August 2016 ajr [1] 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 240 (Supreme Court) [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303