Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Badugu Suresh vs The State Of Ap on 21 June, 2024
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010254002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024
in/and
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4059/2024
Between:
Badugu Suresh and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024
in/and
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4059/2024
COMMON ORDER
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on
behalf of the petitioners herein/A1 to A5, seeking to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.4825 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 506, 354A IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably
out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of
the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 &
2 of 2024 seeking to permit them to compound the offence and record the
compromise.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioners herein/A1 to A5 and 2nd
respondent/de facto complainant are present before this Court. They
produced their respective aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned
counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent have
identified the parties in the open Court. This Court has questioned the de
facto complainant with regard to compromise and she has categorically stated
to that extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the
petitioners herein/A1 to A5. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the
parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. As the parties have
entered into a compromise and compounded the offences, the chance of
conviction is bleak and remote.
4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,1 the Hon'ble Apex Court
held thus: (para 57)
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320
of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i)
to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may
be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. 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 favour
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."
2012 (9) Scale 257
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra & another2, wherein it was held thus:
"The appellant and respondent No.2 were undisputedly in a consensual
relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 as stated by the respondent
No.2). It is the say of the respondent No.2 that the consensual physical
relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The
complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto
FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IPC. On
hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR
in the present case is abuse of the criminal process. The parties chose to
have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of
time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or
after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2
decided to register a FIR. The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by
us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and
bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under
the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal
process itself. We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial
view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. wherein the factual scenario where complainant was
aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still
continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the
FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is
given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of
promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This
was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC,
1860. The Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is
set aside and the proceedings in pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016
stand quashed, leaving parties to bear their own costs."
6. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as the
parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offences, the
proceedings in C.C.No.4825 of 2020 before the trial Court, against the
petitioners herein/A1 to A5 are hereby quashed.
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
7. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.4059 of
2024 are allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Date:21.06.2024
DNV
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024
in/and
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4059/2024
Date:21.06.2024
DNV
