Telangana High Court
Banoth Shiva Ganga Priya Himalai vs The State Of T.S. on 5 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024
In/And
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7756 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/de facto complainant in
Crime No.162 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 376 (2) (n), 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
2. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun
Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner/de facto complainant filed Interlocutory Applications,
vide I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024, in the present criminal petition to
permit the petitioner and respondent No.2 to compound the
offences and to record the compromise, therefore, he prayed
SKS,J
the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in
Crime No.162 of 2024, as the matter has been settled amicably.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
court in Major Amrit Yadav vs. State of Telangana 1, wherein
in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 are held as follows:
"10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh held as under:
"13. In this backdrop and taking the
allegations in the complaint as they stand, it
is impossible to find in the FIR or in the
charge sheet, the essential ingredients of an
offence under IPC. The crucial issue which is
to be considered is whether the allegations
indicate that the appellant had given a
promise to the second respondent to marry
which is at the inception was false and on the
basis of which the second respondent was
induced into a sexual relationship. Taking the
allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet as
they stand, the crucial ingredients of the
offence under IPC are absent. The
relationship between the parties was purely of
a consensual nature. The relationship, as
noted above, was in existence to subsist
during the term of the marriage and after the
2023 SCC OnLine TS 601
SKS,J
second respondent was granted a divorce by
mutual consent."
11. A bare reading of the complaint
would indicate that the 2nd respondent had
sexual relation over a period of four years with
this petitioner consensually. In the said
circumstances, when the 2nd respondent/de
facto complainant is not willing to prosecute
the case against the petitioner in the Court,
the proceedings would only result in wastage
of trial Court's time. Both on facts when the
allegations did not make out any offence of
rape or cheating and also when the parties are
inclined to compromise the matter, only for
the reason there being mention of rape in the
charge sheet and the parties have
compromised, intervention of this Court under
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
cannot be denied.
12. Considering the said report of
the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal
Services Committee, Hyderabad, and in view
of the compromise entered between the
petitioner and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.2 and
3 of 2022 are allowed. Consequently, the
criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings in P.R.C.No.74 of 2022 on the file
of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Secunderabad, are hereby
quashed against the petitioner/accused."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapil Gupta vs.
SKS,J
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 2 , wherein in paragaraph
No.16 it is held as under:
"16. 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 succor 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."
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State
strongly opposed the compromise petitions filed by the
petitioner/de facto complainant stating that one of the offences
charged against respondent No.2/accused i.e., Section 376 (2)
(n) of IPC, is non- compoundable offence. He further submitted
that there are serious allegations against respondent No.2 and
that the act of commission of offence by respondent No.2 is
also specifically mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, on the
ground of compromise by the parties out of Court, the
(2022) 15 Supreme Court Cases 44
SKS,J
proceedings cannot be quashed and prayed the Court to
dismiss the criminal petition and the compromise petitions.
7. In support of his submission, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan 3,
wherein it is held 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;
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
2019 (5) SCC 403
SKS,J
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, 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,
SKS,J
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 impact 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."
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and a perusal of the material
available on record, it appears that respondent No.2 was
charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n),
417 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, in
which, Section 376 (2) (n) is non-compoundable. The prime
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
matter was compromised between the parties and filed
compromise petitions to that effect and as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major Amrit Yadav
SKS,J
(supra 1) and Kapil Gupta (supra 2), the extraordinary powers
of the Court can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings when the parties can be compromised, though in a
heinous or serious crime like rape, as such, the proceedings
against respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed.
9. As seen from the record, there are serious allegations
against respondent No.2 and the offence under Section 376 (2)
(n) of IPC is heinous offence. Further, the judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Major Amrit
Yadav (supra 1), and Kapil Gupta (supra 2), exercised the
extra ordinary jurisdiction, therefore, considering the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi
Narayan (supra 3) and also considering the fact that one of the
offence alleged against respondent No.2 is heinous in nature,
this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against
respondent No.2 in the aforesaid crime merely on the ground
that the parties have entered into compromise.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of
2024 are dismissed. Consequently, the present Criminal
Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to
conclude the Investigation in Crime No.162 of 2024 and file
SKS,J
charge sheet before the concerned Court, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
______________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 05.08.2024
SAI
