Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Duvvada Police Station vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 April, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2872 OF 2022
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the charge sheet in SC.No.97 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. Basing on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.140 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 328, 363, 376 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam; After conducting committal proceedings, the case was made over to the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Visakhapatnam and was numbered as S.C.No.97 of 2019. To quash the same, the present petition is filed by the accused 1 to 3.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the advice of the elders and family members, the matter was settled amicably to lead their respective lives since they are in tender age, now the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant compromised to drop the case made each other and 2 a joint memo also filed along with this petition, thereby prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed under Section 482 read with Section 320 Cr.P.C along with a joint memo, for recording compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays the Court to record compromise in terms of joint memo.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narindar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another1, wherein the apex court dealt with exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases, which deserve consideration specially in case of love affair between teenagers.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor oppose the same.
8. Both the parties were present before this Court and the identity of the parties has been verified. On being specifically asked, both the parties confirmed the terms of compromise recorded in the joint memorandum of compromise.
9. It is to be considered whether proceedings can be quashed where Section 376 IPC is attracted.
10. In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana)2, learned Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, taking into consideration that the parties therein married and are living together and they were blessed with son, quashed the FIR by exercising jurisdiction under Sec 482 Cr.P.C. 1 2014 (6) SCC 466 2 2021 (3) Law Herald 2568 (CRM 31212 of 2020) 3
11. A learned single judge of this High Court by order, dated 30.12.2021 passed in Crl.P.No.7317 of 2021 quashed the proceedings in S.C.No.40 of 2018 against the petitioner therein for the offences under POCSO Act in view of compromise arrived at by parties by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another3, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled the dispute with the victim of the crime, and the alleged crime is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat (2012 (12) SCC 401), this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 of IPC, were non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji v. Radhika, (2011 (100 SCC 705) and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras- 13-15:-3
2012 (10) SCC 303 4
13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No.2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (accused No.3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No.3) is concerned.
14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.
15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above."
13. It is further held in the above judgment that -
"61. .......... 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like 5 transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
14. In Saju P.R. vs. The State of Kerala4, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement between the accused and survivor, for doing justice to the parties concerned.
15. Recently, the Apex Court in Mafatlal v. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2022 vide order dated April 11, 2022, at paragraphs 7 and 8 held as follows:
7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has 4 Crl A No. 1740 of 2019 6 specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own 3 free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old.
No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise therefrom. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 of the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 45 of 2005 dated 23.05.2005 registered with Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
16. In the present case, a perusal of joint memo, dated 28.03.2022 filed by the parties, shows that the matter was placed before the elders and the same was settled amicably to lead their respective lives peacefully.
7
17. Therefore, taking into consideration the above authoritative pronouncements, since the petitioners/accused and respondent No.2/victim compromised to drop the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this petition by quashing proceedings in SC.No.97 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
18. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in SC.No.97 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date : 22.04.2022 pnr