Allowed

Dr. E. Anantha Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Nov 2014CRLP/9463/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC in a matrimonial dispute after a compromise was reached. The court held that continuing the trial served no useful purpose and allowed the petitions to compound the offence, abating the case against one accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.568 of 2009 quashed regarding petitioners A2, A3, and A4; case against A5 abated.

Dr. E. Anantha Krishna Vs The State of Andhra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

CRL.P.M.P.Nos.14131, 14132 and 14136 of 2014

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.9455 & 9463 of 2009 and 11381 of 2010

¶5

COMMON ORDER:

¶6

Criminal petition No.9455 of 2009 is filed by A3, Criminal petition No.9463 of 2009 is filed by A4 and A5 and Criminal Petition No.11381 of 2010 is filed by A2 under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.568 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.14132 of 2014 is filed in Crl.P.No.9455 of 2009, Crl.M.P.No.14131 of 2014 is filed in Crl.P.No.9463 of 2009 and Crl.M.P.No.14136 of 2014 is filed in Crl.P.No.11381 of 2010 seeking permission of the court to compound the offence.

¶8

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A5 is no more. A2, A3 and de facto complainant are present. Sri A.M.Rao, learned counsel for petitioners identified A2 and A3. Sri Y.V.S.S.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the second respondent identified the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant, in the open court, submitted that at the advice of elders she agreed to compromise the matter. She further submitted that she is voluntarily entering into compromise. Accused No.4, who is a practicing Doctor, is not present.

¶9

The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.568 of 2009 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It seems that the parties have entered into compromise to put an end to the litigation once for all.

¶10

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.

¶11

In Madhavarao J. Scindia v. Sambhajirao C.Angre, the Supreme Court held as under:

¶12

"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

¶13

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."

¶14

In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held as under:

¶15

“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.”

¶16

A perusal of the record reveals that the present case arose out of the matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and A1. 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. No useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to go on. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to permit the parties to compound the offence.

¶17

In the result, Crl.M.P.Nos.14132, 14131 and 14136 of 2014 filed for compounding the offence are ordered. Consequently, the criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.568 of 2009 on the file of XIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, in so far as petitioners/A2, A3 and A4 are concerned. The case against A5 is abated. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these criminal petitions shall stand closed.

¶18

__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

¶19

November 06, 2014. YS

Dr. E. Anantha Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. E. Anantha Krishna 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

Nandamuri Bala Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gowli Niroopa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sukhavasi Subba Rao, (A4) Vs Sajja Nagavalli

Dr. N. Sri Latha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Varaprasad,A-3 Vs a.Bhaskar Rao