Smt. Govindpur Swapna And 2 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 638 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.4990 OF 2021
              ALONG WITH I.A. Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.225 of 2021 of

Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Cyberabad.


      2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the

above said crime. The offences alleged against them are under Section -

306 read with 34 of IPC.

      3. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.2 - de

facto complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioners

herein and accordingly he has filed I.A Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 seeking to

permit him to enter into compromise and to record the compromise by

quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

[

3. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioners

and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 - State and also Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.

4. As per the complaint, the allegations levelled against the

petitioners are as under:

i) Respondent No.2 - de facto complainant is the brother of the

deceased - Prabhu.

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

ii) There were matrimonial disputes between Mr. Prabhu and his

wife - Swapna.

iii) Out of such matrimonial disputes, brothers of Swapna, Mr.

Hari and Mr. Arun came and beat the said Prabhu many times.

iv) In the said connection, elders also conducted counseling twice

or thrice.

v) On 21.03.2021 at about 21:00 hours the brothers of Mrs.

Swapna and their relatives came and beat the brother of the de facto

complainant.

vi) The sister-in-law of the de facto complainant made a call to

him and informed that her husband handed himself on 22.03.2021 at

about 14.00 hours.

vii) The brother of the de facto complainant hanged himself due to

the harassment meted out by his wife, her brothers and other relatives

and, therefore, he requested the police to take necessary action against

the petitioners herein.

6. Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioners, would

submit that there is no abetment and the deceased did not receive any

external injuries. In proof of the same, he has relied upon the post-

mortem report. According to him, the deceased was addicted to alcohol

and died on his own. There is no mens rea on the part of the petitioners.

The contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged

against the petitioners. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Kanchan Sharma v. State of

Uattar Pradesh1.

7. Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

contend that respondent No.2 has no objection in quashing the

proceedings in the aforesaid Crime against the petitioners in view of the

compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would

submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the

matter is at the stage of investigation. There are several factual aspects to

be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

9. In view of the above said submissions and considering the fact

that crime was registered for the aforesaid offences, it is relevant to refer

to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in The State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan2, which are as under:

"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;

. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737

2019 (5) SCC 403

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

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 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,

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

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 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. In the complaint dated 22.03.2021, prima facie, there are

specific allegations against the petitioners herein. Their names are also

specifically mentioned in the complaint. There is also mention about the

conducting of panchayat in the presence of the elders thrice. As per the

said complaint, though the said panchayat was held, there was no change

in the attitude of the petitioners. Mobile number is also specifically

mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, there are several factual aspects

to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

investigation. The contentions of the petitioners that there was no mens

rea on their part; that no abetment was there; that no external injuries on

the deceased and that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and died on

his own etc., are all factual aspects to be investigated into by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. In Kanchan

Sharma1, the Apex Court has relied upon the principle laid down by it in

S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190 and Rajiv

Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur [(2013) 3 SCC 330]. The Apex Court has

also examined the statements etc. Whereas, in the present case, it is only

at crime stage and the Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation.

Therefore, the facts of the said decision and the facts of the case on hand

are different and, as such, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.

11. Perusal of the statements of the witnesses recorded under

Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., prima facie, would reveal that there are specific

allegations against the petitioners and, therefore, keeping in view the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan2, the

proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the parties

entered into compromise.

12. Further, the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v.

The State of Maharashtra3 has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did

not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If

. AIR 2019 SC 847

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which

cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court

to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of

case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in

conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and

consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on

oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no

justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be

available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead

to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold.

At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the

complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court

has to consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that

were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the

said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of

issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by

entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.

Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that,

allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of

offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint,

criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh4, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

14. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State

of Maharashtra5, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain

conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under

Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of

India, which are as under:

"....

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to

. AIR 2021 SC 1918

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.

KL,J Crl.P. No.4990 of 2021

Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

15. In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down by

the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the

aforesaid crime at this stage.

16. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 are dismissed and

consequently the Criminal Petition is also dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

criminal petition shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 15th February, 2022 Mgr