Karnataka High Court
P Dinesh Babu @ Dinesh vs The State Of Karnataka By on 22 March, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6780/2020
BETWEEN:
P.DINESH BABU @ DINESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SUNKANNA
R/AT FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR
BALAJI GRAND APARTMENT
BANDALAGUDA JAGIR
HYDERABAD TOWN, HYDERABAD CITY
TELANGANA STATE-500 030. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BALASUBRAMANYA.B.N,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MISS DARSHINI P.L
D/O P.LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT 48, FIRST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
BRUNDAVAN LAYOUT, AYYAPPA NAGAR
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR.G ADV.,FOR R2;
SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-71) IN SPL.C.C.NO.98/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.376,417,354-A,493 OF IPC AND SEC.391®,3(1)(W)(I)(II)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and so also the learned
High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings pending on
the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH71) in Spl.C.No.98/2020 for
the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417, 354A, 493 of
IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and acquit the petitioner herein and grant such other reliefs as
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2 has filed the complaint before the police making the
allegation against this petitioner that she being a member of
SCST, was subjected to the sexual act by the petitioner herein
on the guise of promise to marry her and after having the sexual
act, he turned hostile. Hence, the complaint is filed against the
petitioner herein, the police have investigated the matter and
filed the charge sheet for the above offences.
4. Now the parties have filed the application under
Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to permit them to
compound the offences invoked against the petitioner herein and
also filed the joint affidavit before the Court stating that they
have amicably settled the matter and the said settlement is on
their own accord and free will, not at the behest of any persons,
coercion, threat, or any other extraordinary interest in seeking
to close the case once for all.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
arguments relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.8175/2017, wherein this Court vide order dated
15.10.2019 discussed in detail with regard to the ingredients of
the offence punishable under Section 375 of IPC and the same
does not warrant for invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in
(2019) 9 SCC 608, wherein the Apex Court discussed with
regard to Sections 375 and 90 of IPC and observed that Section
90 of IPC does not define the term consent and also with regard
to misconception of fact. If any consent is given with
misconception, the Court could invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Further, it is observed that the allegations on face of FIR do not
establish commission of offences as alleged. Under the
circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order
of the High Court was set aside and FIR was quashed.
7. Learned HCGP appearing for the State relied upon
the judgment of the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case
of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. LAXMI NARAYAN AND
OTHES reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein the Apex Court
set aside the quashment of non-compoundable offences and
summarized the principles when it is permissible. It is
specifically held that effect of compromise between the parties is
on the seriousness of crime and its social impact, as key
consideration and the non-application of mind by the High Court
is quashing the proceedings on sole ground that there was a
compromise between complainant and accused, held,
unwarranted. The power of quashing is different from power of
compounding. There is no conflict in decisions and the High
Court has misread and misapplied the precedents and hence, set
aside the order of the High Court.
8. This Court would like to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court in GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein at para No.61, the Apex Court
categorically held that before exercising such powers 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to
the offences under the special statutes, like the 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.
9. Having considered the principles laid down in Gian
Singh's case (supra), the larger bench has held that in a case of
rape, the proceedings initiated against the accused cannot be
quashed. The larger bench of the Apex Court in Laxmi
Narayan's case, a recent judgment, held that when the offences
are against the society at large, the High Court must apply its
mind and invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and there cannot be
quashing of the proceedings when the offences are against the
society at large.
10. In the case on hand, the petitioner and respondent
No.2 compromised the matter and filed the application before
this Court seeking permission to compound the offence invoked
under Section 376 of IPC, which is the offence against the
society at large. In view of the principles laid down by the larger
bench of the Apex Court, it is not a fit case to exercise the
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings
invoked against the petitioner herein.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:-
ORDER
The petition is hereby rejected. However the
petitioner is given liberty to approach the Trial Court
to file the application seeking discharge.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A., if any
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PYR
