HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1703 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in P.R.C.No.204 of 2020, on the file of the VI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- VI-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above P.R.C. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C.
The contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the petitioner/accused is a resident of Chennai, Tamilnadu State and is working in YES bank. In the month of January, 2019, the accused was introduced to the 1st respondent/de facto complainant through Bharath Matrimony and exchanged their mobile numbers each other and started conversation and the petitioner used to talk with the 1st respondent and also used to making video calls and chatting. Due to eye sight problem of the 1st respondent, the petitioner called her to Chennai for treatment and as such on 06.09.2019 the 1st respondent went to Chennai and the petitioner received her, taken to a room at Panasi Residence (Lodge) and had sexual intercourse with her by luring her that he will get marry her and both of them stayed up to 08.09.2019 in that hotel. Further, the petitioner came to Dilsukhnagar, taken a room at White Ridge at Durga Nagar on 2 18.01.2020, stayed for two days and had sexual intercourse with her in that lodge and further on 08.08.2020 also he came to the same lodge and stayed there and at that time also he had intercourse with her. Finally the petitioner told her that he is not interested in marrying her and also told that in the year 2019 he got engagement with one Disha and blocked the contact number of the 1st respondent. The charge sheet was taken cognizance as P.R.C.No.204 of 2020 on the file of the VI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate- cum-VI-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said P.R.C.
At the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent had filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner as the petitioner married her on 23.09.2020 in Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, with the consent of their parents and they were leading happy marital life at Chennai.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
Now the point that arises for consideration is "Whether the High Court has power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings for serious offences like rape, on the ground of settlement between the offender and the victim and her family members"?
3
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceedings or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1. After analyzing the whole gamut of the case law on the subject, in paragraph No.61 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal position as under:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 4 capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences." (emphasis supplied) The principles laid down in the above decision are reiterated in the later decision rendered in the case of NARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & Others2. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case could be quashed when there is settlement between the parties, the Court has referred to the guidelines laid down in the case of Gian Singh and has held that if the offence is heinous or serious in nature, then it has to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Then it becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the crime doer. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court "that even if there is a settlement/compromise between the perpetrator of the crime and the victim, that is of no consequence."
In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered whether quashing of proceedings under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code could be held as falling under the category of heinous and serious offence. Analyzing the various aspects of the prosecution case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"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.2
(2014) 6 SCC 466 5 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 Prevention 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."
Time and again the Apex Court held that "The 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 Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has the 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. The offences, which would fall in the category of heinous and serious, such offences have to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Settlement between the parties in relation to such offence cannot be given the seal of approval by the Court". (See The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and another3 and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh4).
3 AIR 2019 SC 1106 4 AIR 2019 SC 312 6 It is not in dispute that heinous and serious offences such as murder, rape, NDPS and dacoity etc. cannot be quashed despite the fact that the victim or the family of the victim has settled the dispute. Rape, undisputedly, is one of the most depraved act. It is not only an offence against an individual and it is categorized as an offence against the society at large.
It is also well settled that it may not be right and proper for this Court to quash the proceedings for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC solely on the ground of settlement between the parties (See Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat5, Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra6).
In Shimbhu v. State of Haryana7 the Apex Court has held as follows:
"Further, a compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurize her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise 5 (2017) 9 SCC 641 6 (2018) 3 SCC 290 7 AIR 2014 SC 739 7 arrived at between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the Court to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376 (2) of I.P.C."
In the instant case also the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that the petitioner by giving false promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her and the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and commission of those offences will have a serious impact on the society at large. Hence, even though there is a settlement between the parties, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offences cannot be quashed.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are serious and grave in nature, which are not compoundable offences and as such the request made by the parties cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 09.09.2021 Gkv/Gsn.
8