Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Perike Johanny John, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 March, 2022

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.7688 of 2021

ORDER: -

      The petitioners are alleged to be accused in Crime No.95/2021

of Vedullapalli police station for the offences under section 417, 420,

506 r/w 34 IPC,on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent alleging

that the 1st petitioner on the promise of marriage had sexual

intercourse with the 2nd respondent and later cheated her and denied

to marry, then the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the

Vedullapalli police, Guntur District who in turn registered the same

as a case in Cr.No.95/2021 for the above said offences against the

petitioner and 4 others. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

approached this court to quash the proceedings, under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. After issuing notice, on 22.02.2022, in view of the joint memo

filed by both the parties stating that they have entered into a

compromise and seeking permission to compound the offence and to

quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioners in the above

said crime number, this Court directed for appearance of both the

parties and the Station House Officer of Vedullapalli Police Station or

any responsible Officer from the said Police Station to identify the

parties, on 02.3.2022.

3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 02.3.2022 both the parties

present in person and the Station House Officer, Vedullapalli Police

Station appeared before this Court, the identity of the parties has been

verified. The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that the

complaint dated 06.10.2021 was lodged with a misunderstanding with

regard to the money transaction, now she is no more interested to

proceed with the matter.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well

as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a

misunderstanding in relation to the money transaction and the parties

having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant not desires to

proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint memo

has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the F.I.R. against the

petitioners, in the above said crime.

6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another1, while

adjudicating the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.] in quashing the

criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute

with the victim of the crime, but the crime in which he is allegedly

involved is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C., it was observed

that -

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat2, 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 IPC, were non-

compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, 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 Shiji3 and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

(2012) 12 SCC 401

Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101

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."

7. 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."

8. In view of the above observations laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another4, with regard to

the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in

relation to non-compoundable offences, and having carefully considered

the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the joint memo

filed by the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and

compromise is recorded.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and FIR in Crime

No.95/2021 registered by the Station House Officer, Vedullapalli Police

Station/1st respondent u/Sec.417, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC is quashed

against the petitioners.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.