1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
IA.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3436 OF 2022
ORDER: -
IA.Nos.2 & 3 of 2022
I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2022 are filed requesting the Court to permit
the 2nd respondent /defacto complainant to Compound the offences
and record the compromise entered into by the parties and quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No. 350 of 2012 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Anaparthi.
2. Today i.e. on 04.05.2022 the parties, together, with their
respective counsel, are present in the Court and the identity of the
parties has been verified. On being specifically asked, both the parties
confirmed the terms of compromise recorded in the joint memorandum
of compromise appended to the application.
3. The terms of the compromise show that at the advice of the
elders and well wishers of the petitioners, both the parties have settled
the matter amicably for leading peaceful life separately and keeping in
mind the social status and in view of their future, they intended to
compromise with each other and the defacto complainant inclined to
withdraw the police report.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as
well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.2-state.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties
having arrived at compromise, the de facto complainant not desires to 2
proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint
memo has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the proceedings
in CC.No. 350 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
at Anaparthi.
6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another 1 , 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 DigvijaysinhRana v. State of Gujarat 2 , 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 Shiji 3 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
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 2 (2012) 12 SCC 401 3 ShijiV.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 3
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 4
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. Recently, the Apex Court in Mafatlal v. State of Rajasthan
in Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2022 vide order dated April 11, 2022, at
paragraphs 7 and 8 held as follows:
7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. 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 3 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.
5
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 of the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
9. In view of the above observations of the Apex Court, in Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another 4 , with regard to the
inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in
relation to non-compoundable offences and in view of the recent
decision of Apex Court in Mafatlal v. State of Rajasthan, and
having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
and in view of the joint memo filed by the parties, I am satisfied that
the aforesaid compromise is executed by the parties out of their free
will and they confirm the terms thereof, when being specifically asked
and, hence, there is no impediment in recording the said compromise.
10. These applications are accordingly allowed.
CRLP.No. 3436 OF 2022
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
in CC.No. 350 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
at Anaparthi are quashed in respect of the petitioners.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________ D.RAMESH,J PA.
4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 6 7
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1830 of 2022
DATED: 04.05.2022
AMD.
8 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No:CRL.P.No.1830 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE NO. 01. 04.05.2022 DR, J Criminal Petition is allowed. (VSO) _______ DR,J PA. 9 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE NO.
