Kulkarni Sri Krishna Chaitanya vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3309 Tel

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.10144 OF 2023

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 against

him in Crime No.858 of 2023 on the file of Station House

Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 420

of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

02. Heard Sri T.Pradhyumna Kumar Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1

and perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that:

Second respondent got acquainted with the petitioner

in the year 2019 and he proposed his love for her and she

also accepted his proposal. Further, they entered into a

relationship and went to Cinemas, Restaurants, Malls etc.

After two years, the mother of the second respondent came

to know about her relationship with the petitioner through

her mobile phone and the mother of the second respondent

spoke to the petitioner and he told her that he cannot live

without her daughter, so that she also accepted him.

04. Further, whenever the parents of the second

respondent were not present at her house, the petitioner

used to come to her house and they met physically and

had sexual intercourse for many times. The second

respondent's mother asked him to talk with his parents

about their love, but he has refused by saying 'no' as he

wanted to wait for his elder brother to get married first.

The petitioner said that his brother also knows about his

relationship with the second respondent and he will accept

his marriage proposal.

05. Later again the mother of the second

respondent asked him about the marriage but he refused

by saying that their castes are different and thus his

parents will not accept her marriage proposal. Later the

mother of the second respondent called the petitioner's

mother and asked about the marriage but she also said no

by stating that all their relatives will not accept their

relationship. The second respondent stated that the

petitioner cheated her by giving false promise of marriage

and entered into a physical relationship with her and

lodged the present complaint.

06. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that both the petitioner-accused and

second respondent are adults and entered into physical

relationship and that the second respondent voluntarily

had physical relationship with the petitioner and therefore,

the ingredients of offence punishable under Section

376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code does not at all attract to

the present case.

07. It is further submitted that the petitioner spoke

to the mother of the second respondent which clearly

shows that he had intention of marrying second

respondent and that both the mother of the petitioner and

second respondent spoke over phone call to each other and

it was explained by the mother of the petitioner that

because of the objection of relatives, the marriage will not

be possible. In fact, the petitioner had intention to marry

second respondent.

08. It is further submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel that the immediately after registration of crime,

both the second respondent and the petitioner entered into

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 03.10.2023

which was agreed upon by the parties that they will get

married with the blessings of the elders and MOU was

signed by the petitioner, his mother, second respondent

and her parents. The terms of the MOU dated 03.10.2023

are not only binding upon the petitioner and second

respondent but also the parents of both the parties and as

per the same, after education of both the parties are

completed, the petitioner and second respondent will get

married. Even as per the MOU dated 03.10.2023, it is

amply clear that both the petitioner and second respondent

were in a relationship being adults and they were insistent

on getting married. However, only due to the families of

the parties reprimanding, the petitioner and respondent

No.2 could not proceed with the marriage and that the

offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code

does not at all attract to the present case.

09. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon a

Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta

v. State of NCT of Delhi and another 1 wherein it was

held that:

6. It further appears that subsequently, in the case arising out of Section 376 of the IPC, that is, FIR No.569 of 2020, the matter was amicably settled and therefore, the petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the said petition.

12......It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, which read thus:

"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.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466 offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1030

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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge−sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the

prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as

such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, 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.

17. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succour to Respondent No. 2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.

18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set aside: 1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Rape) 2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Extortion).

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

further relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court in

Sandip Sundarrao Patil and others v. The State of

Maharashtra and another 2 wherein it was held that:

In Kapil Gupta v/s. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022, the Apex Court has reiterated that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an

Criminal Writ Petition No.3058 of 2023 decided on 20.09.2023.

offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved, would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

8. It is thus well settled that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to quash the proceedings involving serious or heinous offences, or offences against society, merely on the basis of the settlement between the parties. Yet the Court cannot and should not hesitate to exercise such powers when uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the other material collected in the course of the investigation does not disclose cognizable offence, notwithstanding the sections mentioned in the FIR or in the charge. It is therefore necessary to consider the factual matrix of the case and ascertain whether the allegations in the FIR and the other records, taken as a whole, disclose the basic ingredients of the offence.

11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended

that it is not a fit case for quashing at this stage and the

matter is at investigating stage and there is primafacie

material available before Investigating Officer and prayed to

dismiss the petition. He further submitted that if the Court

inclines to quash the crime in view of Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated 03.10.2023, he requested for

granting liberty to the Police to take appropriate action if

there is any violation to the terms of Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated 03.10.2023.

12. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the

case is still at the stage of crime. Moreover, the petitioner

as well as second respondent are adults aged more than 18

years and they are students pursuing their education.

13. Taking into consideration of the fact that there

was an amicable settlement vide Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated 03.10.2023, subsequent to

registration of crime, and as ratio formulated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applicable to the present case

on hand, further the parents of the petitioner as well as the

second respondent appeared before this Court and filed

their affidavits that they are willing to perform the marriage

of the petitioner and second respondent after completion of

their education, this Court is of the considered view that

the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in

Crime No.858 of 2023 on the file of Station House Officer,

Chaitanyapuri Police Station, are hereby quashed. It is

made clear that in case if any of the parties or their parents

violates the terms of Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) dated 03.10.2023, the Police concerned are at

liberty to take necessary action, in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 19-OCT-2023 KHRM

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10144 OF 2023 Date: 19-OCT-2023 KHRM