Telangana High Court

Jatin Agarwal vs T.Harshini on 9 September, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1703 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is the sole accused in P.R.C.No.204 of

2020, on the file of the VI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-

VI-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

quash the proceedings in the above P.R.C. A charge sheet came to

be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C.

The contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the

petitioner/accused is a resident of Chennai, Tamilnadu State and is

working in YES bank. In the month of January, 2019, the accused

was introduced to the 1st respondent/de facto complainant through

Bharath Matrimony and exchanged their mobile numbers each other

and started conversation and the petitioner used to talk with the 1st

respondent and also used to making video calls and chatting. Due

to eye sight problem of the 1st respondent, the petitioner called her

to Chennai for treatment and as such on 06.09.2019 the 1st

respondent went to Chennai and the petitioner received her, taken

to a room at Panasi Residence (Lodge) and had sexual intercourse

with her by luring her that he will get marry her and both of them

stayed up to 08.09.2019 in that hotel. Further, the petitioner came to

Dilsukhnagar, taken a room at White Ridge at Durga Nagar on

18.01.2020, stayed for two days and had sexual intercourse with her

in that lodge and further on 08.08.2020 also he came to the same

lodge and stayed there and at that time also he had intercourse with

her. Finally the petitioner told her that he is not interested in

marrying her and also told that in the year 2019 he got engagement

with one Disha and blocked the contact number of the 1st

respondent. The charge sheet was taken cognizance as P.R.C.No.204

of 2020 on the file of the VI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-

cum-VI-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the

proceedings in the said P.R.C.

At the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent had

filed an affidavit stating that she has no objection for quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner as the petitioner married her on

23.09.2020 in Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, with the consent of their

parents and they were leading happy marital life at Chennai.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point that arises for consideration is "Whether the

High Court has power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of

criminal proceedings for serious offences like rape, on the ground of

settlement between the offender and the victim and her family

members"?

In what cases power to quash the criminal proceedings or

complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and the

victim have settled their dispute is no more res integra in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GIAN

SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1. After analyzing the whole gamut

of the case law on the subject, in paragraph No.61 of the said

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal

position as under:-

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings 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 and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that

(2012) 10 SCC 303

capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences." (emphasis supplied)

The principles laid down in the above decision are reiterated

in the later decision rendered in the case of NARINDER SINGH vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB & Others2. As to under what circumstances the

criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case could be quashed

when there is settlement between the parties, the Court has referred

to the guidelines laid down in the case of Gian Singh and has held

that if the offence is heinous or serious in nature, then it has to be

treated as crime against the society and not against the individual

alone. Then it becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the

crime doer. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court "that even if

there is a settlement/compromise between the perpetrator of the

crime and the victim, that is of no consequence."

In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered

whether quashing of proceedings under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code could be held as falling under the category of heinous and

serious offence. Analyzing the various aspects of the prosecution

case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"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.

(2014) 6 SCC 466

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."

Time and again the Apex Court held that "The 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 Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the

High Court has the 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. The offences, which would

fall in the category of heinous and serious, such offences have to be

generally treated as crime against the society and not against the

individual alone. Settlement between the parties in relation to such

offence cannot be given the seal of approval by the Court". (See The

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and another3 and in

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh4).

AIR 2019 SC 1106

AIR 2019 SC 312

It is not in dispute that heinous and serious offences such as

murder, rape, NDPS and dacoity etc. cannot be quashed despite the

fact that the victim or the family of the victim has settled the dispute.

Rape, undisputedly, is one of the most depraved act. It is not only

an offence against an individual and it is categorized as an offence

against the society at large.

It is also well settled that it may not be right and proper for

this Court to quash the proceedings for the offence of rape under

Section 376 of the IPC solely on the ground of settlement between

the parties (See Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat5, Anita Maria

Dias v. State of Maharashtra6).

In Shimbhu v. State of Haryana7 the Apex Court has held as

follows:

"Further, a compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurize her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise

(2017) 9 SCC 641

(2018) 3 SCC 290

AIR 2014 SC 739

arrived at between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the Court to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376 (2) of I.P.C."

In the instant case also the allegation against the

petitioner/accused is that the petitioner by giving false promise to

marry her, had sexual intercourse with her and the offences alleged

against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of I.P.C.

Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner would fall in

the category of heinous and serious offences and commission of

those offences will have a serious impact on the society at large.

Hence, even though there is a settlement between the parties, the

criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused for the

alleged offences cannot be quashed.

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down in

the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the