Telangana High Court
Ashish Jain vs The State Of Telangana on 28 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.11233 OF 2022
Between:
Ashish Jain ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.12.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 11233 of 2022
% Dated 28.12.2022
# Ashish Jain ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & another
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. J. Pradeep Kiran
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1.
2) Sri Hassan Hussain Junaidi
for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 SLP (Crl.) No. 1132-1155 of 2022
2 SLP (Crl.) No. 5806 of 2022
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11233 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in
Cr.No.448/2022, dated 03.12.2022, on the file of Station
House Officer, Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused for the offences
committed under Section 376, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & STs (POA) Act, on the basis
of complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2nd respondent-
complainant was acquainted with the petitioner herein and
they were talking with each other as friends. The petitioner
made the 2nd respondent believe that he would marry her and
also had physical intimacy with her which was forcibly done.
When the 2nd respondent asked to marry her, the petitioner
allegedly said that he was having four sisters and why he
should marry the 2nd respondent/complainant when she
belongs to SC community and the petitioner belongs to OC
community. Further, the petitioner stated that he has
support of 'Jain Sangham' and she can do whatever she
wants. For the said reason, the present complaint was
registered against the petitioner by the Golkonda Police.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
second respondent and also learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State and perused the record.
5. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent submitted that the petitioner and 2nd respondent
are married on 08.12.2022 and also filed copy of certificate of
marriage as proof. Further, as per the directions of this
Court, the parties have appeared before the Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee who sent a report stating
that there was no coercion or collusion for compromise and
parties have settled the issue.
6. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that FIR was registered on 03.12.2022 and the
marriage took place on 08.12.2022. On the basis of
complaint, the FIR was registered for the offences under
Section 376, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(2)(v) of SC & STs (POA) Act. The offence of rape punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is heinous
offence and this Court under inherent powers cannot
entertain the compromise in such cases to quash the
proceedings.
7. He relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & others arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022. The said decision
was dealing with batch of petitions seeking quashing of
proceedings on the basis of compromise for the offence under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Honourable
Supreme Court held that when the offence under Section 306
IPC is abetment to commit suicide which is a non-
compoundable offence, the High Court, before exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C., has to circumspect
and have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed on
the ground of compromise. Further, the Honourable Supreme
Court held that crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity
and abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil
in nature and such crimes are heinous and have impact on
the Society. In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed
on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and
falls within the ambit of crime against Society.
8. In the present case, complaint was filed on 03.12.2022.
In the said complaint, the 2nd respondent alleged that she
was friendly with the petitioner and participated in sexual
intercourse believing that he would marry. However, when
asked to marry, the petitioner alleged to have said that he
had four sisters and belongs to OC community and since the
2nd respondent belongs to SC community, his family members
would not agree for the marriage.
9. In the complaint the 2nd respondent mentions that
force that was used after she had consented to have physical
intimacy believing that she would be married. Even according
to the complainant she was under the impression that the
petitioner would marry her, for which reason she had
participated in sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Since
the petitioner refused to marry her on the ground that he had
four sisters who are yet to be married, the present complaint
was filed. On 08.12.2022, the marriage of the petitioner with
2nd respondent had taken place and registered with the office
of District Registrar, Hyderabad. After being present before
the Secretary, Legal Services Committee, the parties were also
present before this Court.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in a Judgment in Kapil
Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No.5806 of 2022, under the similar circumstances,
quashed the proceedings of rape. The Honourable Supreme
Court held that when the charges are yet to be framed and
trial has not yet commenced and keeping in view that the
complainant herself was not supporting the prosecution case,
and even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead it will
end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the
parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one
more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal
courts.
11. In the present case, there is no investigation that was
done. After filing the complaint, within five days, the parties
have married and there is no time or expense of the
investigating agency that is wasted on account of the
complaint. Further, when the parties are married and are
living together, permitting the investigation at the expense of
the State and also burdening the criminal Court with one
more criminal trial, is unwarranted.
12. As already stated, the complaint does not reveal that
there was any forcible intercourse but on the promise of
marriage. However, both the parties are aged around 30 years
and were acquainted over a period of time. It is apparent from
the complaint that their physical relation was consensual and
mutual.
13. There is no second thought about the observations of
the Honourable Supreme in Daxaben's case. This particular
case cannot be termed as offence against the Society as the
complaint is a result of disagreement regarding marriage as
stated by the 2nd respondent/complainant in her affidavit. In
the joint memo of compromise and the affidavit filed, the 2nd
respondent submits that due to personal reasons when the
petitioner asked the 2nd respondent to wait for some time
before getting married for the reason of his unmarried sisters,
the present complaint was filed.
14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
when prima facie no offence of rape is made out under 376 of
IPC, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
proceedings. Since the parties have compromised and
marriage of the parties had taken place within 5 days of
registration of FIR, prima facie no offence of cheating is made
out.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in
Cr.No.448/2022, dated 03.12.2022, on the file of Station
House Officer, Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 28.12.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11233 OF 2022
Dt. 28.12.2022
tk
