Madras High Court
K.T.Rajenthrabhalaji vs State Through on 11 February, 2022
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 11.2.2022.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Criminal Original Petition (MD) Nos.15687 and 19243 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.9180 of 2021
1. K.T.Rajenthrabhalaji
2. M.Rasu alias Muthuvel Pandiyan
3. M.Hariharasudhan alias Mani
4. R.Pandiyaraj
5. S.Marikani Petitioners in both cases
vs.
State through
the Inspector of Police,
Sattur Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.397 of 2021) Respondent in both
cases
Veerovureddy R2 in Crl.O.P.No.19243/2021
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Crl.P.C. to
enlarge the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail in Crime No.397 of
2021 on the file of the respondent police.
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. to call
for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.397 of 2021 on the file
of the first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, APP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
COMMON ORDER
The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners one for seeking anticipatory bail and another to quash the FIR in Crime No.397 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2. It appears that the case in Crime No.397 of 2021 came to be registered by the first respondent police on the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging that on 24.9.2021 at about 9.30 when the de facto complainant had been standing alongwith his Party District Secretary at Venkatachalapuram Bus Stop for giving reception to Legislative Assembly Opposition Party Leader/Former Chief Minister, the petitioners took him into their Scorpio Car and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him and they had also threatened him with dire consequences.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is an offshoot of the dispute between the Members of the same party and by passage of time, the parties had compromised the matter and they had also filed a Joint Memo of Compromise duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel and the second respondent/de facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit stating that he has no objection https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 to allow the Criminal Original Petition and quash the proceedings, before this court.
4. The Joint Memo of compromise reads as under:-
"1) It is respectfully submitted that at the instance of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant a case registered in Crime No. 397 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent police against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC alter into 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323, 365 and 506(i) of IPC.
2) it is respectfully submitted that subsequent to the registration of the FIR as against the petitioners at the instance of elders of political leaders and both parties have resolved our differences amicably and settled the entire matter in the presence of elders out of court. Now both parties don’t want to proceed the matter further.
The defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner further. Hence, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 defacto complainant has no objection in allowing the above quash petition since the matter has been amicably settled between both."
5. The second respondent/de facto complainant has also filed an Affidavit which reads as under:-
" 1) I am the defacto complainant in Crime No.397 of 2021 pending on the file of 1st respondent police and I am the 2nd respondent in the above Crl.O.P. and as such l am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
2) I respectfully state that on 24.09.2021, I have preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent police against the petitioner. On receipt of the said complaint, the 1st respondent police had registered a case in Crime No.397 of 2021 for the offence punishable under sections 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC alter into 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323, 365 and 506(i) of IPC. Out of frustration, between me as well as the petitioners resulting in the registration of FIR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Subsequent to the registration of the FIR as against the petitioners at the instance of elders of political leaders both parties have resolved our differences amicably and settled the entire matter in the presence of elders. Now both parties don’t want to proceed the matter further. Hence in view of the amicable settlement between us the case pending in Crime No.397 of 2021 on the file of 1st respondent Police may be quashed. Hence the petitioners and I have jointly filed this Memo of Compromise. Hence. I have no objection in allowing above Crl.O.P to quash the proceedings."
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the de facto complainant and they were identified by the respective counsel.
7. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and the de facto complainant belong to one and the same party and due to some political rivalry, the complaint was given to the respondent police. He would further submit that it is only an intra-party dispute and now the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 parties have settled the dispute among themselves.
8. The case has been registered for offences under Sections 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323, 365 and 506(i) of IPC. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the High Court should act with caution and the power should be exercised sparingly only in order to secure the ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
9. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303], the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. 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 a serious impact on society."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
10. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466], after considering the Gian Singh's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
" 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
11. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843], the Supreme Court held thus:-
“ (1) Section 482 CrPC 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 inherent in the High Court.
(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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 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 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(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.
(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.
(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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(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.
(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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
(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.
(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 (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 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.”
12. Subsequently, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan [AIR 2019 SC 1296], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, has held as follows:
"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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 Therefore, 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 impart 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."
13. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar and another ((2019) 5 SCC 570), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while summarizing the principles regarding quashment of non-compoundable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 offences, has held that the key issues to be considered are whether the offence in question was more in the nature of crime against a Society or more a personal wrong.
14. Keeping the above principles in mind, this court has to now see as to whether the instant case is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
15. In the case on hand, the petitioners are charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 109, 294(b), 341, 323, 365 and 506(i) of IPC. Now, the petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant, who belong to the same political party, have amicably settled the dispute between them. The second respondent has also stated that out of frustration between him and the petitioners, he had given the complaint against the petitioners. The case is also at the stage of investigation. The second respondent/de facto complainant is also not interested in prosecuting the criminal proceedings.
16. Though the offences alleged against the petitioners are of serious and grave in nature, the dispute seems to be one of private in nature and the same may not have social impact. Further, in view of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, the continuity of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the parties as well and hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
17. Therefore, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the FIR in Crime No.397 of 2021 is quashed. Crl.O.P.No.19243 of 2021 is allowed. Consequently, no orders are required in the petition seeking anticipatory bail and thereby Crl.O.P.No.15687 of 2021 stands closed. The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum Rs.50,000/- in total to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Junior Advocates Welfare Fund. The connected Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.9180 of 2021 filed by the de facto complainant seeking permission of the court to intervene in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15687 of 2021 is also closed.
11.2.2022.
Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. ssk.
Note to office:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 Issue copy of this order by 15.2.2022.
To
1. Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ssk.
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15687 and 19243 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.9180 of 2021 11.2.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis