Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 194 (AP)

T. Nageswara Rao v. State of A. P.

2019-08-20

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2019
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This matter was heard at length initially. Both the parties were directed to be present before this Court. The' order was also dictated initially. However, in view of the case law cited in another matter viz., The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 this Court again reopened the matter and heard both the learned counsel. 2. Prior to the initial hearing, both the parties were present. In camera proceedings in the chamber, both L.Ws. 1 and 2 viz., the victim and her husband, clearly and categorically admitted before this Court that the offence of rape was not committed at all. The victim and her husband clearly admitted that there was no force or compulsion to give any statement before this Court and that voluntarily they are stating before this Court that the offence of rape was not committed at all. 3. This is a fact which has to be recorded and the victim and her husband were very clear in their statement that the offence was not committed. Initially, it is pointed out that the case under Section 363 IPC was registered later the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 507 IPC was also included. L.W. 2-the victim, however, was clear that no offence is committed on her. L.W. 1-the husband of the victim supported her. 4. Both the victim and her husband are unwavering in their stand that rape did not occur at all and that the charge was only included in this case at the behest of other elders. They were very clear and categorical in their stand. 5. In view of the fact that Laxmi Narayan case 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 (supra) was brought to the notice of this Court the matter was reopened. Learned counsel for the petitioners clearly argued that even in this case three judges of the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the question of quashing of the proceedings, the earlier law on the subject was reviewed, including the judgments in Gian Singh case; Narinder Singh case etc. Ultimately, the lordships of the Supreme Court of India came to a conclusion that serious and heinous offence cannot be compromised. But the High Court cannot rest its decisions merely because section 307 IPC is included. Ultimately, the lordships of the Supreme Court of India came to a conclusion that serious and heinous offence cannot be compromised. But the High Court cannot rest its decisions merely because section 307 IPC is included. Learned counsel points out that it would be open to the High Court to examine whether the incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence. 6. In the case on hand learned counsel draws the attention of this case to the deposition of the victim in Crime No. 237 of 2011 (C.C. No. 545 of 2012), wherein the present petitioners 1 and 2 are also accused of offences under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120-B read with 34 IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act. In that case also the present victim (respondent No. 3 herein) was examined as L.W. 5. She initially stated that she was raped by the accused and a charge sheet was therefore filed. But in the course of evidence, wherein she deposed as P.W. 4 on 19.03.2018 she stated that she does not know anything about the case facts and that the police did not examine her. As the Assistant Public Prosecutor felt that she has turned hostile he sought permission of the Court to cross-examine her and the same was granted. In the cross-examination also nothing was elicited. Learned counsel submits that even in the case on hand the fact remains that the victim has come forward before this Court and stated that the offence of rape has not been committed. Both L.W. 2-thc victim and her husband stated that the said section has been deliberately included at the instance of the elders. 7. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the trial has not started. Even in a heinous crime like Section 307 IPC if the continuation of the process of law would amount to abuse of law it should be quashed. He submits that the petitioner voluntarily appeared before the Court and stated that the offence of rape was not committed at ali. Therefore, he states that the likelihood of conviction is bleak as the trial has not commenced in this case. He submits that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 8. He submits that the petitioner voluntarily appeared before the Court and stated that the offence of rape was not committed at ali. Therefore, he states that the likelihood of conviction is bleak as the trial has not commenced in this case. He submits that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor also relied upon the same judgment viz., Laxminarayan case 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 (supra) and submits that a heinous offence has been alleged. Therefore, he submits that this is not a case to quash the entire proceedings. 9. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel and noting the unwavering stand of the victim and her husband that an offence of rape was not committed at all, is of the opinion that continuation of the proceeding will not result in conviction of the accused. The witness is also redirecting from her statements made in the other case i.e., C.C. No. 545 of 2012. She initially stated that she was raped by the accused but during the course of her evidence on 19.03.2018 she clearly stated that she does not know anything about the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case also she and her husband together come before this Court and stated that they do not want to prosecute the case. L.W. 1 and the victim appeared before the Court and stated clearly that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case. This affidavit was given on 26.04.2019 and later the same was filed before this Court. In that view of the matter after hearing both the learned counsel this Court is of the opinion that continuing the proceedings could not amount an abuse of process of the Court. The submission made by the learned counsel that in Laxminarayan case 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 (supra) for an offence under Section 307 IPC also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India said that the High Court could look into the fact as persuaded. This Court to go into the matter. 10. Considering the submissions made and after examining the parties present, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and hence all further proceedings are quashed. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.