Allowed

Sri Pagolu Pramod KUmar v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2014CRLP/3455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings. The second respondent (defacto complainant) appeared and confirmed settlement and cohabitation with the accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that continuing proceedings was an abuse of law as chances of conviction were bleak after compromise.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in CC No.400/2013 before XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sri Pagolu Pramod KUmar Vs The State of Ap. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P No.3455/2014 And

¶2

Crl.P.M.P.No.3158/2014

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by A-1 to A-6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.400/2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

Along with the present petition, the second respondent filed Crl.P.M.P. No.3158/2014 seeking permission of the court to compound the offence. The affidavit filed by the second respondent would disclose that at the intervention of well wishers and the elders, the parties have settled their dispute.

¶6

The defacto complainant/second respondent and the petitioner No.1 are present in the court and they are identified by their respective counsel. A-2 to A- 6 are represented by A-1 through GPA. When examined, the second respondent stated that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. She further stated that she is now living with the first accused happily.

¶7

The Supreme Court in MADHAVARAO J. SCINDIA V. SAMBHAJIRAO C. ANGRE^[1] held as under:

¶8

"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."

¶9

The Supreme Court in MADAN MOHAN ABBOT V. STATE OF PUNJAB^[2] held as under:

¶10

“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.”

¶11

[3] In GIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB , 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.

¶12

In view of the judgments referred to above, this court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to go on as chances of conviction would be remote and bleak. As seen from the above, the second respondent and A-1 are living together happily and as such the second respondent is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Since the informant and A-1 are living together happily, and conviction of the petitioners appears to be bleak even if the trial is allowed to go on, continuation of proceedings in CC No.400/2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy would be an abuse of process of law.

¶13

Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P.3158/2014 is ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cc No.400/2013 of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶15

Date: 21-3-2014 KMR

¶16

[1] (1988) 1 SCC 692

¶17

[2] (2008) 4 SCC 582

¶18

[3] (2012) 10 SCC 303

Sri Pagolu Pramod KUmar v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pagolu Pramod KUmar v. The State of Ap.

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

Dr. K.Hemanth Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Sambi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P.

Alakuntla Venkanna S/o Mallaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Al-Kabeer Exports Private Ltd., Vs State

B.S.Purushotham Reddy, S/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.