G. Siva Prasad v. The State Of A.P
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.P.M.P.Nos.11764 and 11765 of 2016 and Criminal Petition No.10405 of 2016 ORDER:
The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.171 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa, for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act.
2. The 2nd Respondent - De facto-complainant filed Crl.P.M.P.No.11764 of 2016 and Crl.P.M.P.No.11765 of 2015 seeking permission of the Court to file a petition to compound the offences and to compound the offences.
3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the second respondent/de facto-complainant and petitioner/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 and petitioner and the 2nd respondent are married and living
happily, 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 Jharkhand[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 the IPC, which are noncompoundable. 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 noncompoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash 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."
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 another[2] the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and compromise is recorded.
6. Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P.Nos.11764 and 11765 of 2016 and the Criminal Petition are allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No.171 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa, are quashed against the petitioner/accused. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J.
22nd July, 2016 skmr
[1] 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 240 (Supreme Court) [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303