Allowed

Mohd. Abdul Jaleel, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Feb 2014CRLP/1070/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act as dispute was purely marital, compromise was arrived between parties, and no useful purpose would be served by continuing prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition for quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.302 of 2012 is allowed by permitting compounding of offence with the 2nd respondent.

Mohd. Abdul Jaleel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1070 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners, who are Accused 1 to 5 filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.302 of 2012 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

2. Along with the present application the petitioners filed Crl.P.M.P. No. 838 of 2014 seeking permission of the court to compound the offence. The affidavit of the 2^nd respondent filed in support of the said petition would disclose that at the instance of elders and well-wishers the parties have settled their dispute and as such she is not interested in proceeding with the case. A joint memo signed by both the parties is also filed.

¶6

3. Both parties are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined the second respondent stated that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶7

4. In GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB^[1] , the Apex Court observed that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, 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.

¶8

5. In MADHAVARAO J. SCINDIA V. SAMBHAJIRAO C.

¶9

ANGRE^[2] the Supreme Court held as under:

¶10

"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

¶11

6. The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT LV. STATE OF PUNJAB^[3] held as under:

¶12

“We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

¶13

7. In view of the Judgments referred to above and taking into consideration the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to go on. Further the dispute between the

¶14

parties is purely an outcome of a marital discord. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-5 can be quashed by permitting the petitioners to compound the offence with the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

8. Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P. No.838 of 2014 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.302 of 2012 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, is allowed.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶17

_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶18

Date: 03.02.2014 GM

¶19

[1] (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶20

[2] (1988) 1 SCC 692

¶21

[3] (2008) 4 SCC 582

Mohd. Abdul Jaleel, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Jaleel, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasamsetti Subba Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Thummalapenta Srihari Rao. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Vasantha Priya Vs The State (Ps., Hayathnagar Cyberabad)

S. Subrahmanyam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Goreti Satyanarayana and 7 Ohters Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Kalle Nagaraj Vs Yanamal Ankaiah