Madras High Court
Manikandan vs The State Rep By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
CRL.O.P No.5804 of 2022
1.Manikandan
2.Sivaprakasan
3.Alamelu
4.Vennila ... Petitioners
Vs
1.The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Thirukovilur,
Cr.No.12 of 2021.
2.Kalpana ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.38 of 2022 pending on the
file of the X Sessions Judge, (Magalir Neethi Mandram), Villupuram.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.G.Rajan
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
For R2 : Mr.P.Senthil Kumar
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in S.C.No.38 of 2022 pending on the file of the X Sessions
Judge, (Magalir Neethi Mandram), Villupuram.
2. The prosecution case is that the second respondent is the victim
girl. The first petitioner and the second respondent/victim girl were in
love from 2015 onwards. On 06.01.2019 at about 8.30 pm, while the
second respondent/victim girl was alone, the first petitioner came in to the
house of the second respondent/victim girl and induced her, on a false
promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with her, due to which, the
victim girl had become pregnant. At that time, the petitioners 2 to 4 who
are the relatives of the 1st petitioner/A1 has abused the second
respondent/defacto complainant in filthy language and intimidated her.
On the impression that the 1st petitioner was getting ready to marry some
other girl, the second respondent/defacto complainant had filed a
complaint. The 1st respondent has registered a case in Crime No.12 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 417, 376 and 506(i) of IPC.
The first respondent after completion of investigation, filed final report
against the petitioners and the case was taken up on file in S.C.No.38 of
2022 before the learned X Sessions Judge (Magalir Neethi Mandram),
Villupuram and the same is pending for trial.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the relationship between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent/de-facto
complainant was consensual in nature. Admittedly, the 2nd
respondent/de-facto complainant got pregnant twice and thereafter, due to
some misunderstanding, their marriage could not take place, which
resulted into lodging of a complaint against the petitioners, however, the
parties have compromised the matter and the 2nd respondent/de-facto
complainant does not want to proceed against the petitioners. He would
further submit that dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent/de-facto complainant is private in nature and thereby, he
would pray that the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed
based on the compromise entered into between the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de-facto
complainant would submit that the relationship between the parties are
consensual in nature, due to which, the second respondent/de-facto
complainant got pregnant twice and since the 1st petitioner refused to
marry her, she had given a complaint as if the first petitioner had induced
and cheated her on the false promise of marrying her. He would further
submit that the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant had entered into a
compromise with the accused and she does not want to proceed further.
5.The parties have compromised the matter and also filed a Joint
Memo of Compromise before this Court, which have been signed by the
petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective
counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were present before
this Court and they were identified by their counsels. This Court also
enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an
amicable settlement between themselves. The parties have also filed a
Joint Memo of Compromise and an affidavit filed by the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
respondent/defacto complainant is extracted hereunder:-
“2.I submit that I lodged the above complaint
against the above petitioners making certain allegations as
if the 1st petitioner had sexual intercourse with me after
making promise to marry me and thereafter, I became
pregnant for three months and then I got it aborted by
taking some pills which was allegedly given by the 1st
respondent. The other petitioners were also alleged to
have threatened me with dire consequences.
3.I submit that the above allegations were made
against them on the fond hope of marrying the 1st
petitioner. But no such incident took place as alleged in the
complaint. Later on, I realized my blunder and now I want
to give a quietus to the entire issue.
4.Since the 1st petitioner happened to be my relative
I wanted to marry him. Therefore I made such allegations
against him. Moreover, we got our issues settled amicably.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
5.Moreover, the breakup I had with the 1st petitioner
seems to be a blessing in disguise and hence I have
decided to give a quietus to the entire issue.”
6. The case has been registered for offences under Sections 294(b),
417, 376 and 506(i) of IPC. It is settled law that the High Court has
inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the criminal proceedings even for the offences which are not
compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
where the parties have settled their dispute between themselves. However,
while quashing the criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived
at between the parties, the High Court should act with caution and the
power should be exercised sparingly only in order to secure the ends of
justice and also to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
7. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303], the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
(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.
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
balance.”
10. Subsequently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan
[AIR 2019 SC 1296], 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
while working in that 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
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
as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein above;
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. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another
((2019) 5 SCC 570), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while summarizing the
principles regarding quashment of non-compoundable offences, has held
that the key issues to be considered are whether the offence in question
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
was more in the nature of crime against a Society or more a personal
wrong.
12. Keeping the above principles in mind, this court has to now see
as to whether the instant case is a fit case to quash the criminal
proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
13. The offences alleged against the petitioners and the dispute
pending between them seems to be one of private in nature and the same
may not have social impact. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant
was also present before this Court and when enquired, she had submitted
that she had entered into a compromise with the petitioners and she does
not want to proceed any further. Further, in view of the compromise
entered into 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 as well and hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this court
is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
14.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
as a sequel, the proceedings in S.C.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the
learned X Sessions Judge, (Magalir Neethi Mandram), Villupuram, is
quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and
parcel of this order.
22.03.2022
Internet : Yes/No
vkr
To
1.The X Sessions Judge,
(Magalir Neethi Mandram), Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirukovilur,
Cr.No.12 of 2021.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vkr
CRL.O.P No.5804 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5804 of 2022
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
