Madras High Court
Mr.N.Bhuvanendra Pandian vs State Represented By on 11 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :11.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.12273 of 2021
Mr.N.Bhuvanendra Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Guindy, Chennai.
(Crime No.17 of 2021)
2. Ms.Vandana ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,to call
for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2020 dated 01.12.2020 on
the file of the 1st respondent Police as far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ganesh
For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/15
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
and quash the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2020 dated 01.12.2020 on the file of the
1st respondent Police as far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant are colleagues
working in the same office and the relationship between them was consensual in
nature. However, due to misunderstanding, the de facto complainant has given a
false complaint, as if the petitioner had committed rape on her. However, the
matter has now been compromised between the parties. The 2 nd respondent/de-
facto complainant has also filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner and
the de-facto complaint were in love and she had preferred the complaint with
an intention that the petitioner will marry her and she also stated that the matter
has been compromised between themselves.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the 2 nd
respondent/de-facto complainant a case in Crime No.17 of 2021 has been
registered for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. The case is still
pending investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de-facto
complainant would submit that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner were
colleagues and the relationship between them was consensual in nature and the
de-facto complainant hoping that the petitioner will marry her, had given a
complaint as if the petitioner had committed rape on her. He would further
submit that the matter has been compromised between the parties and thereby
the de-facto complainant does not want to pursue the matter any more and she
has no objection in the FIR being quashed, based on the compromise enter into
between the parties.
5.A Joint Compromise memo has been filed before this Court, which
has been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by their
respective counsel. The petitioner and the second respondent were also present
before this Court and they were identified by the respondent Police and their
respective counsel. This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that
the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The
relevant portion of Joint Compromise Memo dated 29.03.2022 is extracted
hereunder :-
“2.On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
initially a FIR in Crime No.33 of 2020 was registered by the
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Panruti,
Cuddalore District for offences under Sections 417 and 376 of
IPC and subsequently on the point of jurisdiction the FIR was
transferred to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent herein
assigned Crime No.17 of 2021 for offences under Section 417
and 376 IPC and the same is pending.
3.The 2nd respondent lodged the complaint with the
intention that the petitioner will marry her, after registering of
the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2021 also the 2nd respondent
approached the petitioner for marrying her, since he has refused
to marry the 2nd respondent, upon advice from the elders and
relatives the 2nd respondent have decided not to proceed further
in the above pending case against the petitioner for the reason
that the parents of the 2nd respondent have started searching
alliance for her marriage, hence she have decided to withdraw
the pending case against the petitioner.
4.The petitioner and the 2nd respondent /de-facto
complainant herein undertake and assure that each of them will
not lodge any complaint against each other in future.
5.The 2nd respondent / de-facto complainant undertake
to cooperate with the petitioner to quashing the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
6.The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant agree to
appear before the Hon'ble High Court and give his consent by
filing a consent affidavit in Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021 for
quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in
Crime No.17 of 2021 pending on the file of the 1st respondent.”
6.It is submitted by the parties and their counsels that the 2nd
respondent has willingly consented to the nullification of the criminal
proceedings, even though offence are non-compoundable.
7.In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303], the
Supreme Court has held as follows:
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarized 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 FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
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 a serious impact on society."
8.In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466], after
considering the Gian Singh's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows :-
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is
to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt,
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power
to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under special
statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine
as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases."
9.In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843],
the Supreme Court held thus"
"(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in
the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash
a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim
have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial
in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest
in punishing persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element
of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the
exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions
with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for
quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the State have implications
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private
disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in
the balance."
10.Subsequently, a three judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, has held as
follows:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties
have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise
between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings
for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.
which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground
that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or
the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the
charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to
the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature
of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is
still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not
have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with
the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
11.Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the
instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings based
on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
12.In the case at hand, the petitioner is charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. Now, the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their disputes between
themselves. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has also filed an affidavit
stating that she and the petitioner moved with each other and their relationship
was consensual in nature.
13.Taking into consideration the facts, the de-facto complainant is
aged about 28 years and she has given a complaint that the petitioner has
committed rape on her. Admittedly, both of them were colleagues working in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
the same office. The de-facto complainant had filed an affidavit before this
Court contending that the relationship between them is consensual in nature.
The de-facto complainant had relationship with the petitioner with the hope that
the petitioner will marry her. Now she has rescinded from the statement and she
has now stated that the relationship is consensual in nature. The case is at the
stage of investigation and the second respondent/defacto complainant is not
interested in prosecuting the criminal proceedings.
14. In view of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of
conviction is also remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, the continuity
of the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the
parties, hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to
quash the proceedings as against the petitioner.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.17 of 2020 on
the file of the 1st respondent Police is quashed and Joint Memo of Compromise
signed by both the parties and the Affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated
29.03.2022, shall form part of Court records. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
11.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vkr/nti
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Guindy, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J
vkr/nti
Crl.O.P.No.22577 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.12273 of 2021
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
