SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Moideen vs State Rep. By on 22 July, 2019

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12666 of 2017
and
CRL.M.P.(MD).No.8752 of 2017

1.Mohammed Moideen
2.Rafia
3.Sahul Hameed
4.Katheeja Beevi
5.Parveen
6.Taj : Petitioners

Versus
1.State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station
Madurai Town

2.Sharmila Banu : Respondents

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
praying to call for the final report filed by the first respondent in C.C.No.
629 of 2014 on the file of the Hon’ble Additional Mahila Court, Madurai in
connection with Crime No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Inspector of
Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town and quash the same.

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Elango
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar-no appearance
*******
ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.629

of 2014 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the

same as illegal.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in

Crime No.8 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, Section406

and Section294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint given by the

second respondent/defacto complainant. Now, to quash the above criminal

proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that the defacto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and the other

petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant. Due to matrimonial

dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, the

petitioners herein have harassed the defacto complainant, hence, she has

lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Based on that the first

respondent registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2014 for the offence under

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

Sections 498A, Section406 and Section294(b) I.P.C. After completing investigation, a

charge sheet has been filed, after taking cognizance, the matter is pending

in C.C.No.629 of 2014 before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.

Pending criminal proceedings, this Court by order dated 14.11.2017

referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to

this Bench for Mediation. It is seen from the Mediation report, both parties

have settled their dispute amicably, further both parties agreed to withdraw

their respective cases.

4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, both the

petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant are present in

Court. On enquiry, both parties have stated that they have settled the

dispute between themselves before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre,

attached to this Bench. Now, in view of the settlement arrived at, the

defacto complainant is not willing to proceed with the criminal case any

further.

5. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal

proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have

settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the

parties, the High Court should act with caution and the power should be

exercised sparingly only in order to secure the ends of justice and also to

prevent abuse of process of any Court.

6. SectionIn Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303],

the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can

be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is

distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. 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 or complaint or FIR may be

exercised where the offender and the 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

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and

have a serious impact on society.”

7. SectionIn Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466],

after considering the Gian Singh’s case referred to above, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as follows:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.”

8. SectionIn Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC

4843], the Supreme Court held thus”

“(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends
of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and
preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify
the exercise of the inherent power.

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled
the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of
public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil
dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the
inherent power to quash is concerned.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute.

(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions
(8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh
in the balance.”

9. Recently, in SectionState of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan

[AIR 2019 SC 1296], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering all the

above judgments, has held as follows:

“i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly
the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the
parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have
a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under
the special statutes like SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the SectionArms Act etc. would fall
in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC
and/or the SectionArms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine
as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation
and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such
exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which
are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the
offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

10. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider

the instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal

proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

11. Considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute, the

offences are not serious in nature, even though the crime was registered for

the offences under Sections 498A, Section406 and Section294(b) I.P.C. Now, the

petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably

settled their dispute between themselves before the Mediation Centre, the

first petitioner/husband and the second respondent/wife are living together

happily in the matrimonial home. In view of the compromise between the

parties, the possibility of conviction is also remote and bleak. In the above

circumstances, continuity of the criminal proceedings would only cause

oppression and prejudice to the parties, hence, in order to secure the ends

of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.629 of

2014 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, is quashed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.07.2019

Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
msa

http://www.judis.nic.in
11

To

1.The Judge
Additional Mahila Court
Madurai

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station
Madurai Town

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in
12

V.BHARATHIDASAN, J

msa

Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12666 of 2017
and
CRL.M.P.(MD).No.8752 of 2017

Dated: 22.07.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation