IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Raja @ Karmegam & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri & Another - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 11359 of 2022 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 6559 & 6600 of 2022
Decided On : 10-08-2022
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of criminal proceedings based on compromise
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings against them for offences under sections 294[b], 323, 324 and 506[ii] of IPC, based on a compromise memo filed by the parties involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the compromise memo and the willingness of the parties to settle the dispute, and relied on the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which requires examination of whether the crime is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. It was held that offences purely personal in nature, without affecting overriding public interest, could be quashed based on compromise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, stating that the offences were purely individual in nature and quashing the proceedings would not affect any overriding public interest.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in C.C.No.263 of 2017 and to quash the criminal proceedings.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the C.C.No.263 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri for the offences under sections 294[b], 323, 324 and 506[ii] of IPC.
2. The allegations against the accused in the Final Report is that in a dispute between neighbours, the accused are said to have abused the defacto complainant and attacked her.
3. The petitioners along with the second respondent has filed Joint Compromise Memo wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and the second respondent are close relatives and on the advice of their elders, they have amicably settled the issues between themselves and hence, seek to quash the Final Report.
4. Mr. C.Thirunagaran, Special Sub Inspector of Police was present before this Court and he informed this Court that the defacto complainant and the petitioners had approached him and informed that since they have amicably settled the dispute between them, they he do not want to proceed further with the criminal proceedings.
5. The Defacto Complainant is also present before this Court at the time of hearing. This Court enquired the defacto complainant and she stated that they had amicably settled the dispute between themselves and she is not willing to proceed with the the criminal proceedings and seeks to quash the same.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
7. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable offences pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath, reported in 2017 9 SCC 641 and in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Another reported in (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10, has given sufficient guidelines that must be taken into consideration by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash non-compoundable offences. One very important test that has been laid down is that the Court must necessarily examine if the crime in question is purely individual in nature or a crime against the society with overriding public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences against the society with overriding public interest even if it gets settled between the parties, cannot be quashed by this Court.
8. In the present case, the offence in question are purely individual/personal in nature. It involves dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and quashing the proceedings, will not affect any overriding public interest in this case and no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the Final Report filed in the case in C.C.No. 263 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in C.C. No. 263 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, is quashed. The Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second respondent for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
The court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if the offences are purely personal in nature and do not affect overriding public interest.
The Court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the offences are purely individual in nature and do not affect overriding public interest.
A court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings if they are personal in nature and do not affect public interest.
Non-compoundable offences may be quashed if they are personal and do not affect overriding public interest.
The Court can quash non-compoundable offences if they are purely individual in nature and do not serve overriding public interest.
Courts can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if such offences are purely individual in nature without affecting public interest.
Non-compoundable offences of purely personal nature can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS if no public interest is affected.
Court can quash criminal proceedings for individual disputes under specific conditions, even involving non-compoundable offences, if public interest is not affected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.