CRLP/10331/2022 of ATHOTA SAMBASIVA RAO AT SIVA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

COMMON ORDER:

The Criminal Petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Sections 320(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, („the CrPC‟) is filed seeing to permit the petitioner to compound the offences U/s.498-A and 306 IPC in F.I.R No.210/2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District.

2. The Criminal Petition in I.A.No.4 of 2023, under Sections 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, („the CrPC‟) is filed seeking to record the compromise the matter and quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the 2[nd] daughter of the de facto complainant herein, is married to the 1st petitioner and are blessed with a daughter and a son. Since a year, the daughter of the de facto complainant expressed unhappy and informed to the de facto complainant that her husband harassed her by suspecting her fidelity. The de facto complainant requested to compromise but on 25.08.2022 at about 1.30 am, she received a phone call informing about the missing of her daughter. On 25.08.2022 at about 6.00 am, she received intimation through her relatives that her daughter was found dead. Upon suspicious on the petitioners herein, the de facto complainant filed a complaint on 25.08.2022. On the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thulluru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC has been registered against the petitioners.

4. Pending the proceedings in the main petition before this Court, I.A.Nos.2 & 4 of 2022 were filed under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and 320(6) CrPC, by the 2[nd] respondent/de facto complainant requesting to permit the petitioners to compound the offences and to record the compromise between the parties and consequently to quash the proceedings in Crime No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District.

5. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the petitioners/accused and 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the A.S No.32 of Thullur Police were present before this Court. They produced copies of their identity proof. They were also identified by their counsels respectively. They were already examined on 18.12.2023 about the compromise. Both parties willingly entered into settlement. Property agreed to be conveyed to the minor child A1 was also conveyed through proper registered document. The de facto complainant who is taking care of the minor admitted that she received the original registered deed along with its previous original title deed i.e., link document.

6. After considering all the facts and circumstances, this Court of the view that the settlement can be permitted. In view of the settlement the main proceedings can be quashed to avoid the abused of court of law and in the interest of justice and the interest of the minor girl. They stated that they amicably and voluntarily settled the matter and the de facto complainant has no interest to prosecute the case against the accused and is withdrawing the case and she has no objection to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings in Crime No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC. 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:

“It is submitted that the Petitioner/Accused herein filed the above quash petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District. The respondent No.2 has lodged the above case and the same was registered a case against the petitioner for the offences for the offences U/sec 498-A, 306 of IPC.

it is submitted that at the instances of elders and well-wishers of both sides, the petitioners and 2nd respondent here in have come to a conclusion to settle the disputes pending before this Hon’ble Court. As such we have filed a petition seeking the Hon’ble Court to record the Compromise. The matter was settled between both the Compromise Petition is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. The said compromise is entered with free will and consent and without any undue influence from anyone. Hence, we are filing the present joint memo. Hence, this joint memo”.

7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others[1] had an occasion to deal with various decisions in Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of UP[2], Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar[3], Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.

Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others[4], State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh[5], Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand[6], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[7], Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal[8], State of Panjab Vs. Gurdial Singh[9], Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others[10], Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[11], Narinder Singh Vs. State of Panjab[12], State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi[13]. 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 Another[14], 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:- “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

12022 Live Law (SC) 642

2(2008) 8 SCC 781

3AIR 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

112012 (9) Scale 257

12(2014) 9 SCC 466

13(2014) 15 SC 29

14 (2017) 9 SCC 641

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 ofSection 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash underSection 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 underSection 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 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 482and 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 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. When this Court questioned the complainant with regard to compromise, she reiterated the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.2 of 2022 and 4 of 2022 and categorically stated that she voluntarily and willingly entered into compromise with the petitioners/accused without any force or pressure from any quarter and she has no objection to quash the proceedings against them. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and as the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. In the circumstances, I.A.Nos.2 &

4 of 2022 are allowed and the petitioners/accused and the 2[nd]respondent-complainant are permitted to compound the offence and in view of the joint memo, the compromise is recorded.The Joint Memo filed by the parties shall form part of this order.

10. In view of the submissions, this Court of the view that it is a fit case to record compromise and quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. So, there is no need to pass any order under Section 320 Cr.P.C.Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.4 of 2022 are closed.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed and consequently, the proceedings in Crime No.210 of 2022 on the file of Thullur Police Station, Guntur District, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________

B. S.BHANUMATHI, J

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

I.A.Nos.2 & 4 of 2022 In/andCrl.P.No.10331 of 2022Dated 29.12.2023

KMS