Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chapala Prasanna Kumar Prasanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May, 2022

Bench: D Ramesh

                THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                               IA. No. 1 of 2022
                                    in / and
                             CRLP No.3531 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

      The petitioners are accused in S.C No.76 of 2021 on the file of Court

of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmahendravaram,

East Godavari District for the offence u/Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420, r/w

34 IPC.    The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in the above Sessions Case.

2.    In view of filing of I.A. No.1 of 2022, stating that they entered into

compromise and seeking permission to compound the offence and to set

aside the order as mentioned supra and to acquit the accused A-1 to A-5 for

the said offence, this Court directed their appearance before this Court.

3.   Today(05.05.2022) when the matter is called up for hearing, all parties

concerned to this Criminal Petition are present. When they asked, they

categorically stated that they have entered into compromise and the 2 nd

respondent has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings pending

against the Petitioners/ Accused A-1 to A-5 in view of the Marriage between

1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that Marriage between

the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent was took place on 06.06.2019 and the

same was registered on 08.08.2019 before the Marriage Registrar and the

police were also informed about the Marriage; but, they proceeded to

complete the investigation and laid charge sheet. The petitioners and 2nd

respondent are having cordial relationship, and therefore, prayed to quash

the proceedings in SC. No. 76 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Hon'ble

VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmahendravaram against the

petitioners A-1 to A-5 by recording the compromise.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ A-1 to A-5 as

well as learned counsel appearing for Respondents/complainants and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent State.

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 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 Shiji3 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."

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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

(2012) 12 SCC 401

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

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. In view of the above, I.A. No.1 of 2022 is ordered.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by quashing the SC.No.76

of 2021 on the file of Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District for the offence u/Sections

376(2)(n), 417, 420 r/w 34 IPC.

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

______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dated: 05.05.2022 psr

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH