The vs "In A Very Recent Judgment Decided ...

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The vs "In A Very Recent Judgment Decided ... on 2 May, 2022

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.5433 of 2021

ORDER: -

        The petitioner is alleged to be accused in Crime No.77/2021 of

Kothuru police station, Srikakulam District, for the offences under

Sections 420, 417, 376 IPC, on the complaint given by the 2nd

respondent alleging that the petitioner cheated her and had

intercourse with her by believing her that he would secure

employment to her and also withdrawn her money from her account.

Then the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the Kothuru police,

Srikakulam District who in turn registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.77/2021 for the above said offences against the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this court to quash

the proceedings, under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,

1973.

2. After issuing notice, 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 petitioner in the above said crime number, this

Court directed for appearance of both the parties and also the

investigation officer or any responsible Officer from the said Police

Station to identify the parties, on 02.5.2022.

3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 02.5.2022 both the parties

present in person and the Station House Officer, Kothuru 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 21.5.2021 was lodged with a misunderstanding with 2

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

proceed with the matter.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/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 petitioner would submit 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

petitioner, 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

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 2 (2012) 12 SCC 401 3 Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 3

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."

In another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between

Mafatlal & another vs. The State of Rajasthan4 wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that:

Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant no.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no.2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1 Considering the over all facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise there from. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

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

Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another5, 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.

4 Criminal appeal No.592 of 2022 5 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 5

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

No.77/2021 registered by the Station House Officer, Kothuru Police

Station/1st respondent u/Sec.420, 417 and 376 IPC is quashed against

the petitioner.