Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koiii Hema Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2024
In/and
Crl.P.No.220 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.220 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the CrPC') is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.219 of 2023 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed to permit the petitioner/respondent No.2 in the criminal petition to compound the offence under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
3. I.A.No.3 of 2023 is filed under Sections 320(2) and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to record the compromise and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.219 of 2023 of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
4. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that the complainant, Ponnapalli Rajani, is working as Senior Associate, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam. She got married on 19.12.2010 with Sarvepalli Radha Krishna and they were blessed 2 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 with two children. The petitioner/accused who is working in the same branch used to harass the complainant. During Covid-19 pandemic, when the complainant was on leave, the petitioner/ accused obtained two empty cheques with a promise that he will withdraw the amount and handover the same to her. Thereafter, he failed to handover the amount to the complainant. Further, on 14.05.2023, he went to the house of the complainant, attacked and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.219 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC was registered by Muvvalavanipalem police. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition has been filed.
5. Pending the proceedings in the main petition before this Court, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 were filed under Sections 320(6) and 320(2) CrPC and 482 CrPC by the complainant stating both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they sought permission to compound the offence and to record the compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings in Crime No.219 of 2023 of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District.
3 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024
6. On 24.01.2024, when the matter came up for consideration, the petitioner/accused and the 2 nd respondent/complainant were present before this Court. They produced copies of their identity proof. They were also identified by their respective counsels. Both of them stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise. The 2nd respondent expressed her willingness for quashing the crime. However, since the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not receive instructions, he could not instruct the police to attend before this Court for the purpose of identifying the de facto complainant; the matter is adjourned to 02.02.2024 to enable the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to report regarding the settlement arrived between the parties.
7. Today, i.e., 07.02.2024, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed on record the letter, dated 07.02.2024, of the Station House Officer, M.V.P Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, addressed to the Public Prosecutor, enclosing the consent letter of the complainant. In the said consent letter, it is stated by the complainant that both the complainant and the accused came to an amicable understanding before their elders and they are going to compromise the dispute in the petition pending before this Court.
4 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024
8. The terms of compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a joint memorandum of compromise, which is signed by the parties and their counsels. The contents of the joint memo read as follows:
"1) It is submitted that basing on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the Police Muvvalavanipalem registered a case in FIR No.219 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
2) It is submitted that the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent are working in State Bank of India. Subsequent to the registration of the above FIR, at the intervention of the elders and well wishers, both the petitioner and the respondent with an intention to maintain cordial relationship and to avoid unhealthy atmosphere in the bank, compromised the matter amicably ad decided not to pursue the FIR further. In view of the said settlement, no purpose would beserved in continuing the above said proceedings.
In view of the above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.219 of 2023 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, in the interest of justice."
9. The Supreme Court in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others1 had an occasion to deal with various decisions in Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of UP2, Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 642 2 (2008) 8 SCC 781 5 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 R. Prasanna Kumar3, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others4, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh5, Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand6, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre7, Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal8, State of Panjab Vs. Gurdial Singh 9, Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others 10, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab11, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Panjab12, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi13. Finally, it was held in paragraph No.46 of the said decision as follows:
"46. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another14, a three- Judge Bench of this Court quoted Narinder Singh (supra), Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), CBI V. Maninder Singh (supra), R.Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held:-3
AIR 1990 SC 494: 1990 Supp SCC 686 4 (1983) 1 SCC 1 5 (2010) 11 SCC 226 6 (2013) 11 SCC 673 7 (1988) 1 SCC 692 8 (2007) 12 SCC 1 9 (1980) 2 SCC 471 10 (2021) 5 SCC 524 11 2012 (9) Scale 257 12 (2014) 9 SCC 466 13 (2014) 15 SC 29 14 (2017) 9 SCC 641
6 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
7 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
8 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
10. Perused the record. When this Court has questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise, she has categorically stated that she has amicably and voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused and she has no interest to prosecute the case against him. It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission to compound the offence. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court and as the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. Hence, continuation of the 9 BSB, J Crl.P.No.220 of 2024 impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The joint memo filed by the parties shall form part of this order.
11. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. So, there is no need to pass any order under Section 320 CrPC and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 are closed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.219 of 2023 on the file of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District, are hereby quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 07.02.2024 RAR