Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 485 (AP)

Kuruba Chinna Akkulappa v. State of A. P.

2022-05-02

D.RAMESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are alleged to be accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.8/2019 of Hindupur I Town police station, Ananthapuramu District, for the offences under Ss. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3(1) & 3(1)(s) of SC and ST POA Act, 1989, on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent alleging that one Santha Kumara who is relative of accused fell in love with the complainant who belongs to schedule caste and they both married. On 7/1/2019 one Nisar Ahammed engaged the complainant to clean his house site, without knowing the dispute between the accused and Nisar Ahammed. While attending to cleaning work on 8/1/2019 at 12.00noon A1 to A3 came there and scolded the complainant in the name of caste and kicked the complainant. The complainant was admitted in Government Hospital, Hindupur where the complainant gave statement to Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town police station, Ananthapuramu District who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.8/2019 under Ss. 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.3(1) & 3(1)(s) of SC and ST POA Act, 1989 and after investigation laid charge sheet and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.134/2021 on the file of the learned Special District & Sessions Judge, SC/ST Court, Ananthapuramu. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this court to quash the proceedings, under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. After issuing notice, in view of the joint memo filed by both the parties stating that they have entered into a compromise and seeking permission to compound the offence and to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioners in the above said crime number, this Court directed for appearance of both the parties and also the investigation officer or any responsible Officer from the said Police Station to identify the parties, on 2/5/2022. 3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 2/5/2022 both the parties present in person and the Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town Police Station appeared before this Court, the identity of the parties has been verified. The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that the statement dtd. 8/1/2019 was lodged with a misunderstanding with regard to property disputes, now he is no more interested to proceed with the matter. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state. 5. The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that the statement dtd. 8/1/2019 was lodged with a misunderstanding with regard to property disputes, now he is no more interested to proceed with the matter. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the money transaction and the parties having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant not desires to proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint memo has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the F.I.R. against the petitioner, in the above said crime. 6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303. while adjudicating the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.] in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime, but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Sec. 320 Cr.P.C., it was observed that - "In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 12 SCC 401 . this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Sec. 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Sec. 420 IPC, were noncompoundable offences under Sec. 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji, [Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101]. and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras-13-15) :- "13. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji, [Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101]. and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras-13-15) :- "13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above." 7. It is further held in the above judgment that - "61. .......... 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." In another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between Mafatlal and another vs. The State of Rajasthan, [Criminal appeal No.592 of 2022]. wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant no.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Sec. 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Sec. 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Sec. 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no.2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise there from. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 8. In view of the above observations laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another5, with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. in relation to non-compoundable offences, and having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the joint memo filed by the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and compromise is recorded. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Sessions Case No.134/2021 on the file of the Special District & Sessions Judge, SC/ST Court, Ananthapuramu is hereby quashed against the petitioners. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.