Madras High Court
Anthony Raj vs The State Rep By on 22 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.5402 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.5402 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2961 & 2964 of 2022
Anthony Raj ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
K3-Aminjikarai Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.7 of 2020.
2.A.Nirmala Mary .. Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and quash the
proceeding in S.C.No.337 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Mahalir
Neethimandram Sessions at Allikulam, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the proceeding in S.C.No.337 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Mahalir Neethimandram Sessions at Allikulam, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto
complainant is the wife of the petitioner. They got married on 22.08.1984,
the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute. He would submit that the
defacto complainant sustained burn injuries by accidental spillage of hot
water and thereby a case has been registered for the offences under Section
307 of IPC. Now the matter has been compromised between the parties.
Due to the intervention and elders and even the materials available does not
disclose the case of attempt to commit murder.
3. The case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have
decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among
themselves.
4. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court,
which have been signed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant. The parties were present before this Court and they were
identified by their respective counsel. This Court also enquired both the
parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
between themselves. An affidavit of the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant is extracted hereunder:-
''2.I submit that I am working as Village Heath
Nurse at Govt.Primary Health Centre, Medhur, the Quash
Petitioner is my husband and he is aged about 62 years
and retired Clerk from The Federal Bank Ltd. further both
of them got married on 22.08.1984 and having a daughter
and son named Beula Mary and Pravin Raj respectively.
3.I submit that on 02.01.2020 at about 10.15 am.
Myself and my husband having usual family quarrel at
that time the hot water accidentally spillage in to me due
to that I had sustained small burn injuries, immediately I
was taken in to Billroth Hospitals, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai
- 600 030, no serious injuries hence after treatment I was
return to home on the same day itself.
4.I submit that a case was registered against my
husband in Crime No.7 of 2020, U/s.307 of IPC. And
subsequently a Charge sheet was filed before the Hon'ble
Magalir Neethimandram, Sessions at Allikulam complex-
Chennai and same was taken on file in S.C.No.337 of
2021. The Trial is not yet commenced.
5.I submit that on the day of occurrence the quarrel
between me and my husband is arising out of matrimonial
relationship further my husband having no intention or
mens rea for causing hurt to me. After the above incident
we had been resolved and compromised further decided to
live happily and peaceful as husband and wife under one
roof.
6.I submit that the continuation of criminal
proceeding will spoil our peaceful life and the same is to
be quashed for meet the ends of justice.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
5. The case has been registered for offences under Section 307 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.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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 and have a serious impact on society."
7. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases."
8. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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.
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
(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 balance."
9. 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
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."
10. 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.
11. In the case at hand, the petitioners are charged for the offences
punishable under Section 307 IPC. Now, the petitioners 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 based on the advice of their close relatives and
friends the parties resolved all the issues and decided to live happily and
peaceful as husband and wife under one roof.
12. This Court enquired the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant she
had informed that on 02.01.2020, due to the verbal fight between her and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
the petitioner who is her husband, without knowing the consequences, she
had filed the complaint against the petitioner/husband. The case is also ripe
for trial, the second respondent/defacto complainant is not interested in
prosecuting the criminal proceedings.
13. 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,
frustration 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.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in SC.No.337 of 2021
on the file of the Mahalir Neethimandram Sessions at Allikulam is quashed
and Joint Memo of Compromise signed by both the parties and the Affidavit
of the 2nd respondent dated 22.03.2022, shall form part of Court records.
22.03.2022
jas/tsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J.,
jas/tsh
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K3-Aminjikarai Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.5402 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2961 & 2964 of 2022
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
