Madras High Court
Pitchai @ Karuppanathevar vs The State Represented By
1
BE F O R E THE MADURAI BE N C H OF MADRA S HIGH COURT
DATE: 0 1. 0 7 . 2 0 1 9
CORAM
THE HONOU RA B L E MR. JU S T I C E V.BHARA T HIDA S A N
Crl.O.P.(MD).No s . 9 1 7 6 and 9 1 7 7 of 2 0 1 9
Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 9 1 7 6 of 2 0 1 9
1.Pitchai @ Karuppanathevar
2.Vasiyammal
3.Veerappan
4.Ganesan
5.Annalakshmi ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police,
Elumalai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.238 of 2017)
2.Mayakkal
3.Pradeep
4.Sarathkumar ... Respondents
Pray er in Crl.O. P. N o. 9 1 7 6 of 2 0 1 9 : Criminal Original Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the case in Crime No.238 of 2017 on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
file of the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise
memo, dated 04.06.2019.
Pray er in Crl.O. P. N o. 9 1 7 6 of 2 0 1 9 : Criminal Original Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the case in Crime No.238 of 2017 on the
file of the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise
memo, dated 04.06.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gowrishankar
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan
Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 9 1 7 7 of 2 0 1 9
1.Pradeep
2.Chandru
3.Sarathkumar
4.Shalai Maragatha Mani
... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State represented by
the Inspector of Police,
Elumalai Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.170 of 2017)
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
2.Pitchai @ Karuppanathevar
3.Vasiyammal ... Respondents
Pray er in Crl.O. P. N o. 9 1 7 7 of 2 0 1 9 : Criminal Original Petition is filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the case in Crime No.170 of 2017 on the
file of the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise
memo, dated 04.06.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 & R3 : Mr.R.Gowrishankar
C O MMO N O R DE R
These petitions have been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime Nos.170 of 2017 and 238 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police station, by accepting the joint compromise memo, dated 04.06.2019.
2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.9176 of 2019 are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.238 of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, based on the complaint given by the second http://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondent/de- fact o complainant. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.9177 of 2019 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.170 of 2017 registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 379 (NP) and 427 of I.P.C., based on the complaint given by the second respondent/de- fact o complainant. Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petitions have been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that both the accused and the de-facto complainant are family members and the complainant in Crime No.238 of 2017 is the daughter-in-law of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and close relatives of the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the first and second accused in Crime No.170 of 2017 are the grandsons of the de-facto complainant and the other accused are the friends of first and second accused. Now, the dispute has been resolved between themselves and and they are living in harmony and there is no problem between themselves and the second respondent/de- fact o complainant is not willing to proceed further with the criminal case.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, both the petitioners and the def a ct o complainants are present in Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. On enquiry, both parties have stated that they have settled the dispute between themselves amicably and in view of the settlement arrived at, both the de-facto complainants are not willing to proceed with the criminal case any further and they have also filed a joint compromise memo to that effect.
5. 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.
6. In Gian Sin gh vs. St a t e of Punj a b [20 1 2 (10) S C C 3 0 3 ] , the Supreme Court has held as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 “6 1. The position that em e r g e s from the abov e dis c u s s i o n can be su m m a r i s e d thu s: the pow er of the High Court in qua s h i n g a crimin a l proc e e di n g or FIR or co m pl a i n t in ex er ci s e of its inher e n t jurisdi c ti on is distin c t and differ e n t from the pow er giv e n to a crimin al court for co m p o u n din g the offen c e s under S e c t i o n 320 of the Cod e. Inher e n t pow er is of wide plenitud e with no st a t u t ory limit a tion but it ha s to be ex er ci s e d in a c c or d with the guidelin e engr a f t e d in su c h pow er viz.: (i) to s e c u r e the end s of justi c e , or (ii) to prev e n t abu s e of the proc e s s of any court. In wh a t c a s e s pow er to qua s h the crimin a l proc e e di n g or co m pl a i n t or FIR ma y be ex er ci s e d wh er e the offend e r and the victi m hav e s e t tl e d their disput e would dep e n d on the fa c t s and circu m s t a n c e s of ea c h c a s e and no c a t e g o r y c a n be pre s c ri b e d. How e v e r , befor e ex er ci s e of su c h pow er, the High Court mu s t hav e due reg ard to the natur e and gravity of the crim e . Heinou s and s eriou s offen c e s of me n t a l depr a vit y or offen c e s like murder, rape, da c oity, et c. c a n n o t be fittingly qua s h e d ev e n thou gh the victi m or victi m’ s fa mily and the offend e r hav e s e t tl e d the disput e . Su c h offen c e s are not http://www.judis.nic.in 7 privat e in natur e and hav e a s eriou s impa c t on so c i e t y ."
7. In Narind er Sin gh v. St a t e of Punj a b [20 1 4 ( 6 ) S C C 4 6 6 ] , after considering the Gian Sin gh' s case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
2 9. 1 . Pow e r conf err e d under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 of the Cod e is to be distin gui s h e d from the pow er whi ch lie s in the Court to co m p o u n d the offen c e s under S e c t i o n 3 2 0 of the Cod e . No doubt, under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 of the Cod e, the High Court ha s inher e n t pow e r to qua s h the crimin al proc e e d i n g s ev e n in tho s e ca s e s whic h are not co mp o u n d a b l e , wh er e the parti e s hav e s e t tl e d the ma tt e r bet w e e n the m s e l v e s . How e v e r , thi s pow er is to be ex er ci s e d sp arin gly and with c a u tion.
2 9. 2 . When the partie s hav e rea c h e d the s e t tl e m e n t and on that ba si s petition for qua s h i n g the crimin al proc e e d i n g s is filed, the guiding fa c t or in su c h ca s e s would be to s e c u r e :
(i) end s of justi c e , or http://www.judis.nic.in 8
(ii) to prev e n t abu s e of the proc e s s of any court.
While ex er ci s i n g the pow er the High Court is to form an opinion on eith er of the afor e s a i d two obje c tiv e s .
2 9. 3 . Su c h a pow er is not to be ex er c i s e d in tho s e pro s e c u t i o n s whi ch involv e heinou s and s eriou s offen c e s of men t a l depr a vit y or offen c e s like murder, rape, da c oity, et c. Su c h offen c e s are not privat e in natur e and hav e a s eriou s impa c t on so ci e t y . Si mil arly, for the offen c e s alle g e d to hav e be e n co m m i t t e d under sp e c i a l st a t u t e like the Prev e n ti on of Corruption Act or the offen c e s co m m i t t e d by public s erv a n t s while working in that c a p a c i t y are not to be qua s h e d mer el y on the ba si s of co mpro mi s e bet w e e n the victi m and the offend e r.
2 9. 4 . On the oth er hand, tho s e crimin al c a s e s havin g over w h e l m i n gl y and predo mi n a n tl y civil ch ar a c t e r , parti cul arly tho s e ari sin g out of co m m e r c i a l tran s a c t i o n s or ari sin g out of ma tri m o ni a l relation s h i p or fa mily disput e s sh ould be qua s h e d wh e n the parti e s hav e re s ol v e d their entire disput e s a m on g the m s e l v e s .
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 2 9. 5 . While ex er ci s i n g its pow er s , the High Court is to ex a m i n e a s to wh e t h e r the po s s i bility of convi c tion is remot e and ble a k and continu a ti on of crimin a l ca s e s would put the accu s e d to gre a t oppre s s i o n and prejudi c e and extr e m e inju sti c e would be cau s e d to him by not qua s h i n g the crimin a l c a s e s ."
8. In Parb a t b h a i Aahir v. St a t e of Gujar a t [AIR 2 0 1 7 SC 4 8 4 3 ] , the Supreme Court held thus"
“(1) S e c t i o n 4 8 2 CrPC pre s e r v e s the inher e n t pow er s of the High Court to prev e n t an abu s e of the proc e s s of any court or to s e c u r e the end s of justi c e . The provi si on doe s not conf er ne w pow er s . It only rec o g ni s e s and pre s e r v e s pow er s whi ch inher e n t in the High Court.
(2) The invoc a t i o n of the jurisdi c ti on of the High Court to qua s h a first inform a ti on report or a crimin a l proc e e di n g on the ground that a s e t tl e m e n t ha s be e n arriv ed at bet w e e n the offend e r and the victi m is not the s a m e as the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 invoc a t i o n of jurisdi c ti on for the purpo s e of co mp o u n din g an offen c e . While co m p o u n din g an offen c e , the pow er of the court is gov ern e d by the provi si on s of S e c t i o n 3 2 0 CrPC. Th e pow er to qua s h under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 is attr a c t e d ev e n if the offen c e is non- co mp o u n d a b l e .
(3) In formin g an opinion wh e t h e r a crimin al proc e e d i n g or co mpl a i n t sh ould be qua s h e d in ex er c i s e of its jurisdi c tion under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 , the High Court mu s t ev alu a t e wh e t h e r the end s of justi c e would justify the ex er ci s e of the inher e n t pow er.
(4) While the inher e n t pow e r of the High Court ha s a wide a mbit and plenitud e it ha s to be ex er c i s e d (i) to s e c u r e the end s of justi c e , or (ii) to prev e n t an abu s e of the proc e s s of any court.
(5) the de ci si o n a s to wh e t h e r a co mpl a i n t or first inform a t i o n report sh ould be qua s h e d on the ground that the offend e r and victi m hav e s e t tl e d the disput e , revolv e s ultim a t e l y on the fa c t s and circu m s t a n c e s of ea c h ca s e and no exh a u s t i v e ela b or a ti on of principl e s c a n be formul a t e .
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 (6) In the ex er c i s e of the pow er under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 and while de alin g with a ple a that the disput e ha s be e n s e t tl e d, the High Court mu s t hav e due reg ard to the natur e and gravity of the offen c e . Heinou s and s eriou s offen c e s involving me n t a l depr a vity or offen c e s su c h as murd er, rape and da c oit y ca n n o t appropri a t e l y be qua s h e d though the victi m or the fa mily of the victi m hav e s e t tl e d the disput e . Su c h offen c e s are, truly sp e a k i n g , not privat e in natur e but hav e a s eriou s impa c t upon so ci e t y . Th e de ci s i o n to continu e with the trial in su c h c a s e s is found e d on the overriding ele m e n t of public inter e s t in puni shin g per s o n s for s eriou s offen c e s .
(7) As distin gui s h e d from s eriou s offen c e s , ther e ma y be crimin a l ca s e s whi ch hav e an over w h e l m i n g or predo mi n a n t ele m e n t of a civil disput e . The y st a n d on a distin c t footin g insof a r a s the ex er c i s e of the inher e n t pow er to qua s h is con c e r n e d .
(8) Crimin al ca s e s involvin g offen c e s whi ch ari s e from co m m e r c i a l , finan c i a l , mer c a n t il e , partn er s h i p or si mil ar tran s a c t i o n s with an http://www.judis.nic.in 12 e s s e n t i a lly civil flavour ma y in appropri a t e situ a ti on s fall for qua s h i n g wh er e partie s hav e s e t tl e d the disput e .
(9) In su c h a c a s e , the High Court ma y qua s h the crimin al proc e e d i n g if in vie w of the co mpro mi s e bet w e e n the disput a n t s , the pos s i bility of a convi c ti on is remot e and the continu a ti on of a crimin a l proc e e d i n g would c a u s e oppre s s i o n and prejudi c e ; and (10) Ther e is yet an ex c e p ti on to the principl e s e t out in Propo s i ti on s (8) and (9) abov e . Ec o n o m i c offen c e s involving the finan ci a l and e c o n o m i c well- being of the St a t e hav e implic a ti on s whic h lie beyond the dom a i n of a mer e disput e bet w e e n privat e disput a n t s . The High Court would be justifi e d in de clinin g to qua s h wh er e the offen d e r is involv e d in an a c tivity akin to a finan ci a l or economi c fraud or mi s d e m e a n o u r . Th e con s e q u e n c e s of the a ct co m pl a i n e d of upon the finan c i a l or ec on o m i c sy s t e m will wei gh in the bal a n c e . ” http://www.judis.nic.in 13
9. Recently, in St a t e of Madhy a Prad e s h v. Lax mi Nar a y a n [AIR 2 0 1 9 S C 1 2 9 6 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, has held as follows:
"i) that the pow e r conf err e d under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 of the Cod e to qua s h the crimin al proc e e d i n g s for the non- co m p o u n d a b l e offen c e s under S e c t i o n 3 2 0 of the Cod e can be ex er c i s e d havin g over w h e l m i n gl y and predo mi n a n tl y the civil ch ar a c t e r , parti cul arly tho s e ari sin g out of co m m e r c i a l tran s a c t i o n s or ari sin g out of ma tri m o ni a l relation s h i p or fa mily disput e s and wh e n the parti e s hav e re s ol v e d the entire disput e a m on g s t the m s e l v e s ;
ii) su c h pow e r is not to be ex er ci s e d in tho s e pro s e c u t i o n s whic h involv e d heinou s and s eriou s offen c e s of me nt a l depr a vity or offen c e s like murder, rape, da c oity, et c. Su c h offen c e s are not privat e in natur e and hav e a s eriou s impa c t on so ci e t y ;
iii) si mil arly, su c h pow er is not to be ex er ci s e d for the offen c e s under the sp e c i a l st a t u t e s like Prev e n ti on of Corruption Act or the offen c e s http://www.judis.nic.in 14 co m m i t t e d by public s erv a n t s while working in that c a p a c i t y are not to be qua s h e d mer el y on the ba si s of co mpro mi s e bet w e e n the victi m and the offend e r;
iv) offen c e s under S e c t i o n 3 0 7 IPC and
the Arm s Act et c. would fall in the cate gory of
heinou s and s eriou s offen c e s and ther e f or e are to
be tre a t e d as crim e ag ai n s t the so c i e t y and not
ag a i n s t the individu al alon e , and ther ef or e , the
crimin a l proc e e di n g s for the offen c e under S e c t i o n 3 0 7 IPC and/or the Arm s Act et c. whic h hav e a s eriou s impa c t on the so ci e t y c a n n o t be qua s h e d in ex er c i s e of pow er s under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 of the Cod e , on the ground that the partie s hav e re s olv e d their entire disput e a mo n g s t the m s e l v e s . How e v e r , the High Court would not re st its de ci si o n mer el y be c a u s e ther e is a me n tion of S e c t i o n 3 0 7 IPC in the FIR or the ch ar g e is fra m e d under this provi si on.
It would be open to the High Court to ex a m i n e a s to wh e t h e r incorpor a ti on of S e c t i o n 3 0 7 IPC is ther e for the s a k e of it or the pro s e c u t i o n ha s coll e c t e d suffi ci e n t evide n c e , whi ch if prov e d, would lea d to fra min g the ch ar g e under S e c t i o n 3 0 7 IPC. For thi s purpo s e , it would be open to the High Court to go by http://www.judis.nic.in 15 the natur e of injury su s t a i n e d , wh e t h e r su c h injury is inflict e d on the vital/dele g a t e part s of the body, natur e of we a p o n s us e d et c. How e v e r, su c h an ex er c i s e by the High Court would be permi s s i b l e only aft er the evid e n c e is colle c t e d aft er inve s t i g a t i o n and the ch ar g e sh e e t is filed/char g e is fra m e d and/or during the trial. Su c h ex er c i s e is not permi s s i b l e wh e n the mat t e r is still under inve s t i g a t i o n . Ther e f or e , the ultim a t e con cl u s i o n in par a gr a p h s 2 9. 6 and 2 9. 7 of the de ci s i o n of thi s Court in the ca s e of Narind er Sin gh (supr a) should be read harm oni ou s l y and to be read a s a whol e and in the circu m s t a n c e s st a t e d herein a b o v e ;
v) while ex er ci s i n g the pow er under S e c t i o n 4 8 2 of the Cod e to qua s h the crimin al proc e e d i n g s in re sp e c t of non- co mp o u n d a b l e offen c e s , whi ch are privat e in natur e and do not hav e a s eriou s impart on so ci e t y , on the ground that ther e is a s e t tl e m e n t/co m pr o mi s e bet w e e n the victi m and the offend e r, the High Court is required to con s i d e r the ant e c e d e n t s of the ac c u s e d ; the condu c t of the accu s e d, na m e l y , wh e t h e r the accu s e d wa s ab s c o n di n g and why he wa s ab s c o n di n g , how he http://www.judis.nic.in 16 had ma n a g e d with the co mpl a i n a n t to ent er into a co mpro mi s e et c."
10. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
11. In the case on hand, though the cases in Crime No.238 of 2017 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and in Crime No.170 of 2017 was registered for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 379 (NP) and 427 of I.P.C., it is only family disputes between the parties. Now, the petitioners and the second respondent/de- fact o complainants have resolved the dispute between themselves and they are living in harmony and there is no problem between themselves and both the def a ct o complainants are not interested in prosecuting the complaint. In view of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction is also remote and bleak. In the above circumstances, continuity of the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression and prejudice to the parties, hence, in order to http://www.judis.nic.in 17 secure the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime Nos.170 of 2017 and 238 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai District are quashed.
0 1. 0 7 . 2 0 1 9 akv To
1. The Inspector of Police, Elumalai Police Station, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18 V.BHARA T HIDA S A N , J .
akv Crl.O. P.(MD).No s . 9 1 7 6 and 9 1 7 7 of 2 0 1 9 0 1. 0 7 . 2 0 1 9 http://www.judis.nic.in