Allowed

Mohd. Afroz Khan , Muban , Mohd Afrose v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2016CRLP/16125/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the petitioners to compound offences including Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Arms Act violations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that despite the non-compoundable nature of assault causing hurt, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised given the neighbours' settlement, elder intervention, and intention to maintain peaceful

What did the court decide?

Permission accorded to compound the registered offences under Sections 307, 341, 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) Arms Act.

Mohd. Afroz Khan , Muban , Mohd Afrose Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Crl.P.M.P.NO.18274 of 2016 IN/AND Crl.P.No.16125 of 2016

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Crl.M.P.No.18274 of 2016 :

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking permission to compound the Crime No.57 of 2016 on the file of Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and under Section 25 (1) (A) of Arms Act.

¶5

Even though the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C. is not compoundable, parties entered into compromise due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they also entered into memorandum of understanding in view of the amicable settlement.

¶6

All the petitioners and defacto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels.

¶7

On enquiry the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life.

¶8

This Court took an objection about the jurisdiction of this Court to permit the petitioners to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “ Yogendra Yadav and others v.

¶10

¶11

State of Jharkhand and another¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court has considered the powers of Court to grant permission to compound the offences though they are not compoundable while referring to the guidelines issued in “ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶12

Anr .² ” and held in paragraph No.6 as follows:

¶13

“……….. Affidavit has been filed in this Court by complainant-Anil Mandal, who is Respondent No. 2 herein. In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court. It is further stated that he and the Appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully. He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the Appellants. Learned Counsel for the parties have confirmed that the disputes between the parties are settled; that parties are abiding by the compromise deed and living peacefully. They have urged that in the circumstances pending proceedings be quashed. State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise. The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the Appellant and the second Respondent for quashing of the proceedings.”

¶14

In “ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr .” (referred supra) the Apex Court held that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however before exercising such power, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime and its social impact. It is further held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., could not be fittingly quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled dispute. Such offences were not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly any compromise between victim and offender

¶15

1 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 240 (SC)

¶16

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶17

¶18

in relation to offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; could not provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.

¶19

According to the principle laid down in the above judgments inherent power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised keeping in mind the gravity of the crime and its social impact. Here, the parties who appeared before this Court admitted their intention to lead peaceful life. Moreover, parties to the crime are the neighbours; due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and to maintain cordiality among them they entered into compromise. Taking into consideration of the social impact of the crime, I find that it is a fit case to permit the petitioners to compound the offence.

¶20

Accordingly, permission is accorded to compound the offences allegedly registered against the petitioners.

¶21

Crl.P.No.16125 of 2016 :

¶22

In view of the order passed in Crl.P.M.P.No.18274 of 2016, this petition is allowed. No costs.

¶23

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶24

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

21.11.2016 Ksp

Mohd. Afroz Khan , Muban , Mohd Afrose v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Afroz Khan , Muban , Mohd Afrose v. The State of Telangana

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

Gotta Jagannadha Rao Vs Yanaganti Bala Krishna

Md. Shoukath Ali , Pappu, Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Shoukath Ali , Pappu, Vs The State of Telangana

Yogesh Agarwal Vs Smt. Anchal Kumari Agarwal

Sandrapali Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Avirneni Satya Srinivas Vs State of Andhra Pradesh