Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Honey Gupta Pamnani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
[3311]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7063 of 2023
Between:
Mrs. Honey Gupta Pamnani and two others.
...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hon'ble High
Court, Amaravathi and another.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A. SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI VENKAT CHALLA
BSB, J
2 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023
Court made the following order:
COMMON ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 503, 506, 504, 406, 499, 500 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('I.P.C.'), Sections 65 and 67 of ITA-2000-2008 and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 to compound the offences under Sections 503, 506, 504, 406, 499, 500 r/w 34 of I.P.C., Sections 65 and 67 of ITA-2000-2008 and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate.
3. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C to record the compromise in Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, between the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant.
BSB, J 3 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023
4. The 1st petitioner/accused No.1 is wife of the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. The 2nd petitioner/accused No.2 is father of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd petitioner/accused No.3 is mother of the 1st petitioner. The prosecution's case is that the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was held on 18.04.2018 and registered on 21.04.2018. After two years of their marriage, the 2nd respondent's business suffered due to Covid-19, due to which the 1st petitioner went to her maternal house at Gwalior on 29.05.2020. While so, the 1st petitioner started demanding money, and upon refusal, the 2nd respondent filed a case under Section 498-A alleging harassment due to demand for money. Later, the 1st petitioner started spreading maliciously inaccurate and unfounded messages, posts, information and phone calls to intimidate the 2nd respondent and his family and spoiling professional reputation and threatened him with dire consequences. The messages have been sent circulated on Whatsapp, Twitter and LinkedIn, in various personal and professional circles which have widespread repercussion on personal reputation, career and life and bring irreparable damage and injury to his reputation and the reputation of his family. Further, the 1st petitioner also took a phone from the 2nd respondent with important data, such as, recordings, photos, locker and company and thereby breached the trust. Basing upon the above averments, the 2nd respondent made a complaint which was later registered as Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 503, BSB, J 4 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 506, 504, 406, 499, 500 r/w 34 of I.P.C., Sections 65 and 67 of ITA- 2000-2008 and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. Pending the proceedings in the main petition before this Court, I.A.Nos.2 and 1 of 2024 were filed under Sections 320(6) of Cr.P.C. and 320(8) of Cr.P.C., by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, requesting to permit the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to compound the offence and to record the compromise between the parties and consequently to quash the proceedings in Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate.
6. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant were present before this Court and produced copies of their identity proof. They were identified by their counsels respectively. When examined, they stated that they amicably and voluntarily settled the matter and the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant has no interest to prosecute the case against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and is withdrawing the case and has no objection to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings in Crime No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the offences punishable under Sections 503, 506, 504, 406, 499, 500 r/w 34 of I.P.C., Sections 65 and 67 of ITA-2000-2008 and Section 156(3) of BSB, J 5 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 Cr.P.C., against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. 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:
"The above-named Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 beg to present this Memorandum of Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.272 of 2022 on the file of IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 503, 504, 506, 406, 499, 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 65, 67 IT Act. 2000.
2. The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant. The marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant was solemnized on 18.04.2018 according to the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs.
3. Due to misunderstandings and irretrievable differences The Petitioner No.1 and Complainant have been staying away since May 2020 and on the instance of elders and well wishers have filed a Section 13-B mutual divorce petition in Hon. Family Court of Gwalior on 22nd February, 2022.
4. It is submitted that in reliance and compliance of the mutual divorce petition the parties have compromised amicably and the petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have agreed to settle the present proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.272 of 2022 on the file III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Section 503, 506, 504, 406, 499 and 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 65 and 67 of the Information Technology Act.
5. As such, we have filed a petition seeking this Hon'ble Court to record the compromise. The contents mentioned in the said compromise petition are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. The said compromise is entered with free will and consent and without any coercion. Hence, we are filing this present Joint Memo.
6. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 herein to compound the offences with the Respondent Ne 2/Petitioners herein by recording the compromise and by allowing the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners against the proceedings in Crime No.272 of 2022 on the file BSB, J 6 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 of the IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
7. 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. 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 Singh9, Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others10, 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 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 642 2 (2008) 8 SCC 781 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 BSB, J 7 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 (supra), CBI V. Maninder Singh (supra), R.Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held:-
"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.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that BSB, J 8 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 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.
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 BSB, J 9 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 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."
8. Perused the record.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no need to pass any order under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 are closed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in FIR No.272 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, on the file of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 19th February, 2024.
cbn BSB, J 10 Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI C-363 I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 In/and Crl.P.No.7063 of 2023 19th February, 2024 cbn