Ahmed Bin Hassan Maqavi v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.Nos.3933 and 3934 of 2015 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.3432 of 2015 COMMON ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.170 of 2013 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 324 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act read with 34 IPC.

Crl.P.M.P.Nos.3933 and 3934 of 2015 are filed to permit the de facto complainant to compromise the matter with the accused and consequently quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner-accused and the second respondent-de facto complainant are present. Mr.Mohd. Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner identified the petitioner. Mr.Md. Mubeen, learned counsel for the second respondent identified the second respondent.

The petitioner and the second respondent, in the open court, submitted that they voluntarily entered into compromise. A perusal of the record reveals that A2 in crime No.48 of 2008 of Chandrayanagutta Police Station faced trial in C.C.No.486 of 2008 and he was acquitted on 12.3.2013. The case against the petitioner/A1 was split up and numbered as C.C.No.170 of 2013 arose out of crime No.48 of 2008.

The offences under Section 324 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act are non-compoundable. Section 34 IPC has to be read along with main offence i.e., Section 324 IPC.

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."

".............. 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." Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the view that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution.

the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

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 view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.Nos.3933 and 3934 of 2015 are ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.170 of 2013 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad Police Station, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

May 01, 2015.

YS [1] (2011) 10 SCC 705 [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303