(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Quashing of Criminal Proceeding-Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity its cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim and offender have settled the dispute.
Catch Words : mental depravity, criminal proceeding, present criminal petition, police station, personal nature, gravity, bright future, sequel thereto, criminal court, common sense approach, ragging act, useful purpose, above crime, criminal petition, corruption act, great oppression, rami reddy, wide plenitude, such power, apex court, criminal procedure, civil flavour stand, matrimony, dacoity, meaningful litigation
Advocate Appeared :For the Petitioner: P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Public Prosecutor, R2, R3, M/s. Ammaji Nettam, Advocate.
This Criminal Petition is filed by sole accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No.94 of 2014 of Hayathnagar Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 (ii) (iv) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997.
The allegations in the report would disclose that on 04.02.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner is alleged to have ragged the respondent Nos.2 and 3, beat respondent No.2 with legs and hands and also abused them by touching their caste. Basing on these allegations the above crime came to be registered.
Along with the present Criminal Petition, the petitioner filed Crl.P.M.P.No.1899 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences. The affidavit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed along with the petition would disclose that at the instance of elders and well-wishers, they have settled the matter out of court and they have no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
On 24.02.2014 respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner were present before the Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. When examined, respondent Nos.2 and 3 stated that they have settled the dispute with the petitioner and are not interested in pursuing the matter.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303), the Apex Court held that 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 i