Karnataka High Court
Satish S/O Hanumantappa Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100404 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
SATISH S/O HANUMANTAPPA MADAR,
AGE : 31 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE,
R/O: KALAKARADI,
TQ: ANDAGI, TQ :SIRSI,
DIST UTTARA KANNADA-581 358.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI)
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011.
Digitally signed by 2. SNEHA D/O NAGAPPA MADAR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O: C/O: SATISH
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
S/O HANUMANTAPPA MADAR,
KALAKARADI,TQ ANDAGI, TQ :SIRSI,
DIST:UTTARA KANNADA 581358.
3. SMT. MALAKSI W/O NAGAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O H.NO. 31A, NEAR RANGAMANDIR,
KALAKARADI, TAL: SISRI - 581358,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3
R2 SERVED)
-2-
CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, CHARGE
SHEET, ORDER OF COGNIZANCE, DATED 15.06.2022 AND
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASE NO.
69/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR
IN CONNECTION WITH BANAVASI P.S. CRIME NO.96/2021,
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 363, 376,
506 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING
INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him in Spl.S.C.No.69/2022 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Uttara Kannada, Karwar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 of Indian Penal -3- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Petitioner has contended that he is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not at all committed the alleged offences. Petitioner is the cousin of respondent No.3-complainant. They are residing in the same village and in visiting terms. Since two years, petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix were in love and they were intending to marry. However, the family of respondent No.2-prosecutrix was not ready for the alliance as petitioner's family is very poor. Petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix have married at the Temple. They stayed together from 02.10.2021 to 14.04.2022. Now respondent No.2-prosecutrix were in love has delivered a child and she is residing in the house of petitioner with his parents. If the criminal proceedings are not quashed, the life of petitioner, respondent No.2-prosecutrix as well as their child would be ruined. Already evidence of respondent No.2-prosecutrix is recorded, but she has not supported -4- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 the prosecution case. The continuation of the trial would not serve any purpose and prays to allow the petition and quash further proceedings.
3. Respondent No.3-complainant has filed objections stating that petitioner kidnapped respondent No.2-prosecutrix while she was still minor i.e. aged 17 years 3 months and raped her. They were searched and secured only after respondent No.3-complainant filed WPHC No.100019/2021. As a result of the rape committed by the petitioner, respondent No.2-prosecutrix has conceived. When respondent No.3-complainant refused to take her to custody, she was sent to Balakiyara Balmandira, Karwar. Now in order to escape from the punishment, petitioner is seeking quashing of proceedings. In SLP No.24362/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is examining the validity of compounding of such offences as per the order of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Crl.Misc.No.5636/2019 and prays to dismiss the petition. -5- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023
4. A joint compromise petition is filed under Section 320(2) r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix, who is now a major, supported by their separate affidavits.
5. On 16.03.2023 a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix have got married and on that basis they are seeking quashing. However, on query by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix is not registered. Now that the respondent No.2-prosecutrix has attained majority, they are ready to register their marriage. Since the petitioner is in judicial custody, at the request of counsel for petitioner permission was granted to enable petitioner to appear before the Registrar of Marriage, Sirsi for the purpose of registration of the marriage.
6. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.02.2023 permission was granted to the petitioner to appear before -6- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 the Registrar of Marriage, Sirsi and accordingly the marriage between and petitioner and respondent No.2- prosecutrix is registered. In fact the registration certificate of their marriage is also produced which is registered on 24.03.2023.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and the learned counsel representing respondent No.3-complainant.
8. From the material placed on record it is evident that at the time of incident respondent No.2-prosecutrix was aged 17 years 3 months. Since petitioner is his distant relative, being the cousin of respondent No.3-complainant, it appears respondent No.2-prosecutrix was also interested in him. This is evident from the fact that when petitioner has kidnapped her and she stayed with him from 02.10.2022 to 14.04.2022, on which date they were found by the concerned police, she never resisted and tried to -7- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 run away. It appears as a result of their physical relationship she became pregnant.
9. After the disappearance of respondent No.2- prosecutrix alleging that the concerned police are not searching her, respondent No.3-complainant filed WPHC No.100019/2021. As per the directions of this Court, the concerned police have arrested the petitioner and also traced respondent No.2-prosecutrix and produced her before the Court. The order passed in WPHC No.100019/2021 revealed that respondent No.3- complainant, who is the mother of the prosecutrix and was the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition, has refused to take the custody of respondent No.2-prosecutrix. Therefore she was sent to Balakiyara Balamandira.
10. It appears after she attained majority, respondent No.2-prosecutrix is staying with her in-laws i.e., the parents of petitioner along with her daughter. A joint memorandum of compromise petition is filed under Section 320(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the -8- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix stating that the prosecutirx has attained the age of majority. Her date of birth is 18.06.2003. The victim and accused are married and their marriage was registered before the registrar of marriage on 24.03.2023. They are married according to rituals and custom prevailing in Hindu community. They have entered into compromise in the interest of respondent No.2-prosecutrix and their daughter. There is no pressure or coersion and prays to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab1 (Narindra Singh's case) wherein at paragraph 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 -9- CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023 Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
11.1. In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another2, (Gian Singh's Case), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High Court exercising inherited powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11.2. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and another3 (Yogendra Yadav), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable, if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 (2014) 9 SCC 653
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023Court also held that offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on Society and are not restricted to individuals or groups. Quashing of such offence may send a wrong signal to the Society. However, if the High Court is convinced that the offences are individual or personal in nature and not affecting the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
12. In the light of the above decisions, it would be necessary to examine whether this is a fit case to accept the compromise between the parties.
13. The compromise entered into between petitioner and respondent No.2-prosecutrix is opposed by
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023respondent No.3 who is no other than the mother of respondent No.2-prosecutrix and also the complainant. Though she is the complainant, the aggrieved person is respondent No.2-prosecutrix. All though at the time of incident she was aged 17 years 3 months, now she has attained majority. She is having a daughter through the petitioner. In fact during the course of her evidence before the Trial Court she has not supported the prosecution. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.3 the mother of prosecutrix is not ready to take care of her and her daughter, if the petitioner is continued to remain in custody, she would be left to lurch along with her daughter.
14. The nature of the offence alleged would indicate that it is not going to affect the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.2-prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution, it has become lame and pursuing such lame
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023prosecution would be waste of time and energy and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
15. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In order to do real, complete and substantial justice between the parties, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings, by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.
Permission is granted to the parties to compound and in the result, the entire proceedings Spl.S.C.No.69/2022 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
- 13 -CRL.P No. 100404 of 2023
Judge, FTSC-1, Uttara Kannada, Karwar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 as against petitioner/accused are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT-AK