The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC regarding a non-compoundable offence under Section 304A IPC, as a full settlement was reached between the parties, making continuation futile and oppressive.
The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.472 of 2014 were quashed and closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.No.12835 of 2015 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.10719 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.472 of 2014 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulurpeta, Nellore District.
2. Crl.P.M.P.No.12835 of 2015 is filed to permit first respondent–de f a c t o complainant to compromise the matter with the petitioner/accused.
3. The petitioner and the first respondent are present. Mr.T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel identified the petitioner. Mr.G.Sundaresan, learned counsel identified the first respondent.
4. The first respondent in the open court submitted that she voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner at the advice of the village elders. She further submitted that nobody compelled or forced her to enter into compromise with the petitioner. The offences under Sections 304A IPC is non-compoundable
5. 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.”
6. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab[2] , the apex Court observed as under:
“………….. 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.”
7. Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, this court is of the view that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the first respondent may not support the case of the prosecution. No purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. 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 opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
9. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.No.12835 of 2015 is ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.472 of 2014 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulurpeta,
Nellore District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J. December 14, 2015. YS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence if a settlement is reached.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings despite settlement would be an abuse of the process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiji alias Pappu v RadhikaExplained¶7
Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika
Gian Singh v State of PunjabApplied¶10
Gian Singh v State of Punjab
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/Accused
Complainant
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
