THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3316 of 2011 Date: 15.04.2011 Between: Sanjeev Kumar and others …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3316 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the case D.V.C.No.52 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial (JFCM). The said case has been filed for various reliefs by the 2nd respondent herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law and the 4th respondent is their relative. 2. The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the petitioners says that this petition is filed is that the parties have compromised the matter and therefore the DVC should be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has been repeatedly asked as to what is the hurdle in filing this petition before the concerned Court, in which the case is pending but he has not been able to give any convincing reply on this aspect. 3. The only statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that all the concerned parties have to come from a long distance i.e., Patna to Mancherial where the JFCM Court is situate. It is brought to my notice that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are present today in the Court and their presence is recorded. It must also be mentioned here that the JFCM Court at Mancherial is in Adilabad District. 4. One important aspect which was not brought to my notice is this. In the paper book filed by the petitioners the petitioners have enclosed a copy of the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No.1035 of 2010 and other petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for certain reliefs. That Transfer Petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the second respondent Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari herein. The said order dated 10.01.2011 of the Supreme Court reads as follows. “T.P. (C) No.1035/2010 T.P. (Crl) No.561/2010 T.P. (C) No.1285/2010 The parties to these three transfer petitions, which are none else than the husband and wife in an estranged marriage and her in-laws, are willing to try to resolve their disputes through mediation and are also willing to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, for the purpose. As agreed between the parties, both Shri Sanjeev Kumar and Smt. Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari are directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad on February 07, 2011. A report from the Mediation Centre should reach this Court within two months from that date. Till then, the proceedings in Matrimonial Case No.566 of 2010 entitled ‘Sanjeev Kumar v. Rekha Kumari’ pending in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna (TP (C) No.1035/2010); in DVC Case No.52/2010 entitled ‘Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.’ pending in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Mancherial (TP (Crl.) No.561/2010); and in OP No.45/2010 titled ‘Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari v. Sanjeev Kumar’ pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, shall remain stayed.” 5. The above order shows that the parties have pleaded compromise before the Supreme Court also and it covers the present DVC No.52/2010. The said order reads that the Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court on 07.02.2011 and directed that the Mediation Centre should send a report to the Supreme Court within two months from that date i.e. 07.02.2011. The wording in the Supreme Court order would without any ambiguity indicates that thereafter the Supreme Court would again take up the matter and pass appropriate orders in the cases including the present DVC No.52/2010. That being the position it follows that this Court will not have any jurisdiction in the matter to deal with the same either under Section 482 Cr.P.C or otherwise. This is a strong minus point for the petitioners and it is not known as to how they were advised to approach this Court in the face of the above order of the Supreme Court. One aspect which may arise is whether this Court should call for a report or information from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court as to whether any report is sent. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary as the report has to be sent to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter should be decided there. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners however pointed out that this Court can record the compromise and quash the DVC in order to “secure the ends of justice” as that expression is used in Section 482 Cr.P.C as a ground for quashing a proceeding. That expression “secure the ends of justice” used in Section 482 Cr.P.C would cover only those situations where an impugned order or proceedings requires to be quashed on the ground of an illegality which vitiates the impugned order and where there is no express provision in the Cr.P.C to set it aside but not to a situation like this where a compromise is pleaded as a ground for quashing the case. 7. In order to act upon a compromise the Court has to satisfy itself firstly about the identity of the parties i.e. their proper identification, secondly about their willingness for effecting compromise and thirdly their agreement about the terms of the compromise. This exercise can be effectively done only by the first Court before which the case is pending with the help of police officers in a police case or with the help of concerned advocates appearing in the trial Court and in the case of a matter falling under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act with the help of the concerned protection officers or other officers under the said Act. This exercise has to be done carefully to avoid future complications of any party coming up before the Court again denying the compromise on the ground of impersonation or on the ground of coercion or fraud and that can be done only by the first Court before which the case is filed. Hence I am of the opinion that this Court should not entertain a petition for quashing the case on the ground of compromise when it is at the stage of FIR or pending as a case for enquiry or trial before the trial Court. This aspect is stated as it was argued by the petitioner’s counsel though it is not necessary for this case in view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. 8. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 15.04.2011 Tjmr/cvrk