Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B.Veeresh vs State Of A.P on 28 April, 2022

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.694 OF 2018
ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) to quash

the proceedings in S.C.No.131 of 2017 on the file of learned II

Special Sessions Judge, Offences against Women -cum- VII

Additional District Judge, Kurnool.


2.    2nd   respondent     being   the   complainant   filed   private

complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni and the

same was referred to Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and

the same was registered as crime No.82 of 2013 for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

After investigation Police filed charge sheet and the same was

numbered as C.C.No.131 of 2017 on the file of learned II Special

Sessions Judge, Offences against Women -cum- VII Additional

District Judge, Kurnool. To quash the same, the present petition

is filed by the accused.

3. Heard Smt. P. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri S.V.Sainath learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the

complainant falsely implicated the petitioner in this crime

because he refused to marry the victim girl as she was aged 16

years at the time of engagement. She further submits that the

petitioner married the victim girl on 30.04.2016 after she

attained the age of majority and they are living under same roof

as wife and husband. Out of wedlock they were blessed with two

children. Hence, continuing of criminal proceedings against the

petitioner in this regard amounts to abuse of process of law.

5. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed under Section 482 read with

Section 320 Cr.P.C. for recording compromise. Learned counsel

for the petitioner prays the Court to record compromise in terms

of memorandum of understanding. In support of her contention,

she placed reliance on Narindar Singh and others vs. State of

Punjab and another1 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court dealt with

exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases,

which deserve consideration specially in case of love affair

between teenagers.

6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor on

instructions submits that the petitioner married victim girl and

they have been residing under one roof and also blessed with

children.

7. On 02.03.2022, all the parties were present before this

Court and this Court examined respondent No.3, who in turn

submitted that she has been living with her husband i.e. the

petitioner herein.

8. It is to be considered whether proceedings can be quashed

where Section 376 IPC is attracted.

2014 (6) SCC 466

9. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab (Punjab and

Haryana)2, learned Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High

Court, taking into consideration that the parties therein married

and are living together and they were blessed with son, quashed

the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Sec 482 Cr.P.C.

10. A learned single judge of this High Court by order, dated

30.12.2021 passed in Crl.P.No.7317 of 2021 quashed the

proceedings in S.C.No.40 of 2018 against the petitioner therein

for the offences under POCSO Act in view of compromise arrived

at by parties by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

11. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another 3, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the inherent powers of

High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the

criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled the

dispute with the victim of the crime, and the alleged crime is not

compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. observed as under:

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat (2012 (12) SCC 401), this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 of IPC, were non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code,

2021 (3) Law Herald 2568 (CRM 31212 of 2020)

2012 (10) SCC 303

whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji v. Radhika, (2011 (100 SCC 705) and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh‟ case, SCC paras- 13-15:-

13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No.2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (accused No.3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No.3) is concerned.

14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.

15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above."

12. It is further held in the above judgment that -

"61. .......... 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public

servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

13. In Saju P.R. vs. The State of Kerala4, the Hon‟ble Apex

Court quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement

between the accused and survivor, for doing justice to the

parties concerned.

Crl A No. 1740 of 2019

14. In the present case, a perusal of joint memo, dated

23.01.2018 filed by the parties, shows that the accused and

victim girl got married subsequent to registration of the above

crime and they are living under one roof as husband and wife.

Further according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, the couple is blessed with two children out

of their wedlock.