HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.11233 OF 2022
Between:
Ashish Jain ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.12.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 11233 of 2022
% Dated 28.12.2022
# Ashish Jain ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. J. Pradeep Kiran
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1.
2) Sri Hassan Hussain Junaidi
for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 SLP (Crl.) No. 1132-1155 of 2022
2 SLP (Crl.) No. 5806 of 2022
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11233 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.448/2022, dated 03.12.2022, on the file of Station House Officer, Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused for the offences committed under Section 376, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & STs (POA) Act, on the basis of complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent- complainant was acquainted with the petitioner herein and they were talking with each other as friends. The petitioner made the 2nd respondent believe that he would marry her and also had physical intimacy with her which was forcibly done. When the 2nd respondent asked to marry her, the petitioner allegedly said that he was having four sisters and why he 4 should marry the 2nd respondent/complainant when she belongs to SC community and the petitioner belongs to OC community. Further, the petitioner stated that he has support of 'Jain Sangham' and she can do whatever she wants. For the said reason, the present complaint was registered against the petitioner by the Golkonda Police.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State and perused the record.
5. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner and 2nd respondent are married on 08.12.2022 and also filed copy of certificate of marriage as proof. Further, as per the directions of this Court, the parties have appeared before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee who sent a report stating that there was no coercion or collusion for compromise and parties have settled the issue.
6. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that FIR was registered on 03.12.2022 and the 5 marriage took place on 08.12.2022. On the basis of complaint, the FIR was registered for the offences under Section 376, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & STs (POA) Act. The offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is heinous offence and this Court under inherent powers cannot entertain the compromise in such cases to quash the proceedings.
7. He relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022. The said decision was dealing with batch of petitions seeking quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Honourable Supreme Court held that when the offence under Section 306 IPC is abetment to commit suicide which is a non- compoundable offence, the High Court, before exercising its power under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C., has to circumspect and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature 6 and have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court held that crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature and such crimes are heinous and have impact on the Society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against Society.
8. In the present case, complaint was filed on 03.12.2022. In the said complaint, the 2nd respondent alleged that she was friendly with the petitioner and participated in sexual intercourse believing that he would marry. However, when asked to marry, the petitioner alleged to have said that he had four sisters and belongs to OC community and since the 2nd respondent belongs to SC community, his family members would not agree for the marriage.
9. In the complaint the 2nd respondent mentions that force that was used after she had consented to have physical intimacy believing that she would be married. Even according 7 to the complainant she was under the impression that the petitioner would marry her, for which reason she had participated in sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Since the petitioner refused to marry her on the ground that he had four sisters who are yet to be married, the present complaint was filed. On 08.12.2022, the marriage of the petitioner with 2nd respondent had taken place and registered with the office of District Registrar, Hyderabad. After being present before the Secretary, Legal Services Committee, the parties were also present before this Court.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in a Judgment in Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5806 of 2022, under the similar circumstances, quashed the proceedings of rape. The Honourable Supreme Court held that when the charges are yet to be framed and trial has not yet commenced and keeping in view that the complainant herself was not supporting the prosecution case, and even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one 8 more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.
11. In the present case, there is no investigation that was done. After filing the complaint, within five days, the parties have married and there is no time or expense of the investigating agency that is wasted on account of the complaint. Further, when the parties are married and are living together, permitting the investigation at the expense of the State and also burdening the criminal Court with one more criminal trial, is unwarranted.
12. As already stated, the complaint does not reveal that there was any forcible intercourse but on the promise of marriage. However, both the parties are aged around 30 years and were acquainted over a period of time. It is apparent from the complaint that their physical relation was consensual and mutual.
13. There is no second thought about the observations of the Honourable Supreme in Daxaben's case. This particular case cannot be termed as offence against the Society as the 9 complaint is a result of disagreement regarding marriage as stated by the 2nd respondent/complainant in her affidavit. In the joint memo of compromise and the affidavit filed, the 2nd respondent submits that due to personal reasons when the petitioner asked the 2nd respondent to wait for some time before getting married for the reason of his unmarried sisters, the present complaint was filed.
14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when prima facie no offence of rape is made out under 376 of IPC, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings. Since the parties have compromised and marriage of the parties had taken place within 5 days of registration of FIR, prima facie no offence of cheating is made out.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Cr.No.448/2022, dated 03.12.2022, on the file of Station House Officer, Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
10
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.12.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.tk 11 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.11233 OF 2022 Dt. 28.12.2022 tk