* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.

VIJAYSEN REDDY

+CRIMINAL PETITION No.1032 of 2013

%15-02-2021

# Pankaj Kumar Nimayat and others.

…petitioners /accused Nos.1 to 7

Vs.

$ The State of A.P.through S.H.O

Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
And another.

….Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.H.Prahalad

^Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.Guru Murthy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]
2. [(2014) 6 SCC 466]
3. (2005) 3 SCC 299
4. (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736
 BVR, J
2 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

MAIN CASE NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1032 of 2013

Between:
Pankaj Kumar Nimayat and others.

.. petitioners
And

The State of A.P.through S.H.O

Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
And another.

.. Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.02.2021

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local news papers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment?
 BVR, J
3 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1032 of 2013

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.607 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, wherein charge sheet has been laid

against the petitioners – Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences under

Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the D.P. Act’).

2. The petitioners have raised several grounds in the quash

petition. However, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into the

merits of those grounds since it is represented by Mr. H. Prahalad

Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, that O.P.No.380 of 2012

was jointly filed by respondent No.2 – de facto complainant – wife, and

the petitioner No.1 – husband before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy

District for mutual divorce wherein all the pending civil and criminal

disputes have been settled. Learned counsel has drawn attention of

this Court to clause No.6 of the mutual divorce petition wherein it was

stated that the wife shall withdraw the present criminal case i.e.

C.C.No.607 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District.

3. Sri G. Guru Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2,

states that compromise, in fact, has been entered into by the parties

and that appropriate orders may be passed by the Court.

4. In the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, the parties have agreed upon certain terms and conditions

and in pursuance thereof a decree of divorce by mutual consent was

granted in OP.No.380 of 2012 dated 17.09.2013 on the file of the

 BVR, J
4 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The divorce decree, is

part of the Court record vide USR.No.2831 of 2020.

5. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is compoundable.

However, the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are not

compoundable, (Section 8(2) of the D.P. Act). It is fairly settled by

several judgments of the Supreme Court that the inherent power

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked to

quash the criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable

offences when there is a settlement between the complainant/victim

and the accused (see GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB1 and

NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB2.

6. However, it has been reiterated time and again in several

authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the inherent

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in prosecutions

which involve heinous and serious offences and mental depravity viz.

murder, rape, dacoity etc; the offences which are not private in nature

and have serious impact on the society; the offences under special

Statutes viz. the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, committed by

public servants (see para 29.3 in NARINDER SINGH (2 supra)).

7. Criminal cases which have 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 (see para 29.4 in NARINDER

SINGH (2 supra)).

1
[(2012) 10 SCC 303]
2
[(2014) 6 SCC 466]
 BVR, J
5 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

8. The High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of

conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal

proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice

and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the

criminal cases (see para 29.5 in NARINDER SINGH (2 supra)).

9. Section 320 Cr.P.C., enlists several offences which are

compoundable without permission of the Court and with permission of

the Court. As observed supra, the inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings even in

non-compoundable offences where parties have entered into

settlement. However, many of the judgments rendered by the

Supreme Court, on this issue, relate to matters where the accused and

the complainant/victim came forward to place on record the

compromise entered into between them. Taking into consideration

such compromise, the proceedings have been quashed invoking the

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. However, in the instant case, there is no compromise recorded

between the parties before this Court in the criminal proceedings.

There is a compromise between the parties in a petition filed for

mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The terms of the joint petition filed in OP.No.380 of 2012 before the

Family Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B. Nagar, show that there are civil and

criminal cases pending between the parties. Under Clause No.6,

it is agreed that, ‘wife has withdrawn both the criminal cases filed

u/s 498 A IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act in C.C.No.607/2011 &

Cr.No.541/2011 u/s 120(B) and 420 against the Petitioner No.2 and

his family members on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate,

R.R. Dist; and another case in D.V.C.No.10.2013 on the file of II M.M.

R.R. Dist filed under Domestic Violence Act and M.C.No.45/2012 the
 BVR, J
6 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

file of the Family Court, R.R. Dist. At L.B. Nagar as the above cases

were failed falsely on wrong advice…’. Though it is stated that the

respondent No.2/wife has withdrawn the cases, apparently it is a

typographical error. It has to be understood that parties have agreed

to withdraw the cases. This Court is not concerned with DVC.No.10 of

2013, MC.No.45 of 2012 and Cr.No.541 of 2011. This Court is only

concerned with C.C.No.607 of 2011, which is the subject matter of the

instant petition.

11. The Supreme Court in RUCHI AGARWAL v. AMIT KUMAR

AGARWAL3 quashed criminal proceedings arising out of offences

under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

D.P. Act taking into consideration the fact that the parties have arrived

at a compromise by dissolving the marriage by mutual consent under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pursuant to the compromise

filed by the parties, in partial performance of the terms of the

compromise, the complainant/wife withdrew the maintenance case

filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but she did not withdraw the

complaint from which the appeal before the Supreme Court arose

(Section 498-A IPC). The Supreme Court took note of the contention

of the wife that the compromise deed was filed under coercion and

repelled such contention, in view of the fact that the marriage ended in

mutual divorce and that the husband has performed his part of the

obligation under the compromise by handing over the stridhana

articles to wife and maintenance in lump sum, which was

acknowledged by the wife. Having observed that the continuation of

the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the

Court, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings.

3
(2005) 3 SCC 299
 BVR, J
7 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

12. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, this Court is

of the opinion that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed,

not only for the reason that the parties have entered into compromise

under mutual divorce petition before the Family Court in OP.No.380 of

2012 but also for the reason that the dispute arose out of matrimonial

relationship.

13. In the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ARUN

SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH

ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER4, it was held that offences under

Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act are offences against society and not

private in nature; and such offences have serious impact on the

society; even if the parties enter into settlement, the same cannot be

a ground to quash criminal proceedings. The observations of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Singh’s case (4 supra) in relevant

paragraphs are extracted below:

14. In another decision in the case of Narinder

Singh Vs. State of Punjab it has been observed
that in respect of offence against the society it is
the duty to punish the offender. Hence, even
where there is a settlement between the offender
and victim the same shall not prevail since it is in
interests of the society that offender should be
punished which acts as deterrent for others from
committing similar crime. On the other hand,
there may be offences falling in the category
where the correctional objective of criminal law
would have to be given more weightage than the
theory of deterrent punishment. In such cases,
the court may be of the opinion that a settlement
between the parties would lead to better relations
between them and would resolve a festering

4
(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736
 BVR, J
8 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

private dispute and thus may exercise power

under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the
proceedings or the complaint or the FIR as the
case may be.

15. Bearing in mind the above principles which

have been laid down, we are of the view that
offences for which the appellants have been
charged are infact offences against society and
not private in nature. Such offences have serious
impact upon society and continuance of trial of
such cases is founded on the overridding effect of
public interests in punishing persons for such
serious offences. It is neither an offence arising
out of commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or such similar transactions or has
any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a
distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if
arrived at between the complainant and the
accused, the same cannot constitute a valid
ground to quash the F.I.R. or the charge-sheet.

14. In Arun Singh’s case (4 supra), the issue before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was relating to a compromise said to have been

entered into before a Police Officer and not related to a compromise

entered into before a Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants therein that in

view of compromise before Police, the complaint filed by the appellants

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was not pressed (see para 4 of Arun

Singh’s case (4 supra)).

15. In the instant case, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant

agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases instituted by her;

she has agreed to withdraw all the defamatory allegations; It was

further stated that criminal cases were filed on wrong advice; she does

not have any kind of claim of damages and reliefs from the petitioner
 BVR, J
9 Crl.P.No.1032 of 2013

No.2 (petitioner No.1 herein). These allegations regarding offences

under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are unfounded; in any event

very vague and omnibus, going by the contents of charge sheet.

In the circumstances, continuance of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners would amount to gross abuse of process of law and ends of

justice would serve if the proceedings are quashed.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A7 in C.C.No.607 of 2011 on

the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.

Nagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
February 15, 2021
Note: LR Copy to be marked
(B/o) KTL/DSK/LSK