Mr.Vinit Kumar Tulsyan v. The State Of Telangana And Another

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.P.MP.Nos.12075 & 12076 of 2016 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.11000 of 2016 ORDER:

The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2015 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

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

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Basing on complaint filed by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the above case is registered against the petitioner for the offences alleged. It is submitted by both parties that 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.

I n 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 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 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, 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 in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[2] the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and compromise is recorded, and consequently, proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2015 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad registered against the petitioner/ accused are hereby quashed.

The Crl.P.MP.Nos.12075 and 12076 of 2016 and Crl.P.No.11000 of 2016 are accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J 28th July 2016

ajr [1] 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 240 (Supreme Court) [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303