Allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and sections 4, 6 Dowry Act due to a settlement in matrimonial discord, citing private nature of offences and abuse of process.
Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2012 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Crl.P.No.5992 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 3 filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the
XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Pending the said petition, parties have entered into settlement and pursuant to which, they have passed on affidavits across the Bench seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences. The affidavits are placed on record. The affidavit of the de facto-complainant passed on across the bar would disclose that at the instance of elders and wellwishers, they have settled the matter out of court and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused.
Today, parties are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. When examined, the second respondent stated that she has settled the dispute with the petitioners and is not interested in pursuing the matter and has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr .[1] , the Apex Court while dealing with the power of the High Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code held as under :-
“Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding of complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. 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.”
The material on record would disclose that the dispute is
a fall out of a marital discord between the second respondent and A1. Taking into consideration the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties and as the offences with which the accused are charged are purely private in nature not affecting the public at large, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served even if the proceedings are allowed to continue. Further, the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution even if the accused are allowed to face the trial. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and taking into consideration the nature of offences with which the petitioners are charged, I am of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused would be an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 22nd August, 2014
skmr
[1] 2012 Crl.L.J.4934
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 can be quashed on account of a settlement between the parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process in matrimonial disputes arising from marital discord.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and AnrExplained¶8
2012 Crl.L.J.4934
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Accused Nos. 1 & 3
Second Respondent
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
