Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1492 (AP)

Naralasetty Meera Bai v. State ff Andhra Pradesh

2023-12-04

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2023
ORDER: 1. The Criminal Petition No.8928 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’) is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, as against the petitioner/A-2 by name Naralasetty Meera Bai. The Criminal Petition No.8393 of 2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’) is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.577 of 2022, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District, as against the petitioners/A-1 & A-3 by name Duvvarapu Satyavathi and Duvvarapu Rambabu. 2. The brief facts in the present case are as follows: Crime No.926 of 2022, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City was registered under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioner in view of the death of Surampudi Jyothi @ Ambati Jyothi, W/o Manikanta on 28.11.2022 by committing suicide. 3. Crime No.577 of 2022 of Kothapet Police Station was registered on 01.12.2022 against Duvvavarapu Satyavathi, Rambabu/A-1 and A-3 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC due to death of Manikanta who is the husband of the deceased in Crime No.926 of 2022. 4. Pending the criminal petition, I.A.Nos.3 & 2 of 2023 are filed by the petitioner/R-1 under Sections 320(2) and 320 (6) CrPC, requesting to permit the parties to compound the offence and to record the compromise between the parties and consequently to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and Crime No.577 of 2022, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District. 5. When the matter was taken up, Petitioner/A-2 by name Naralasetty Meera Bai and the second respondent/de facto complainant, by name, Duvvarapu Satyavathi, are present and are duly identified. Sri S.Mahesh Naik, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner is present. Sri B.Srinu, S.I. (6424) of Ajit Singh Nagar Police, Vijayawada City, is present. They produced copies of their respective identity proofs. They are also identified by their respective counsels. 6. Both parties submitted that due to the intervention of the elders, the matter is amicably settled and that they voluntarily settled the issue. The second respondent/de facto complainant expressed that there is no objection to set aside the case against the petitioner/A-2. 7. They produced copies of their respective identity proofs. They are also identified by their respective counsels. 6. Both parties submitted that due to the intervention of the elders, the matter is amicably settled and that they voluntarily settled the issue. The second respondent/de facto complainant expressed that there is no objection to set aside the case against the petitioner/A-2. 7. When examined, they stated that they amicably settled the matter and the complainant has no interest to prosecute the accused and is withdrawing the case and she has no objection to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District under Sections 498 A and 306 IPC and Crime No.577 of 2022, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. 8. The terms of compromise are 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 in Crl.P.No.8928 of 2023 read as follows: “1. I submit that I file a complaint as Crime No.926 of 2022 of the Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City, NTR District for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 498 IPC for the offences under Sections 306 & 498 IPC against the petitioner and accused No.1. The respondent police conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and accused No.1 and the same is numbered as PRC No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. It is pertinent to mention that while pending the crime the accused No.1 died on 01.12.2022. 2. It is submitted that at the intervention of the disinterested mediator, the petitioner and I compromised the above said complaint and accused No.1 also died and the petitioner is relative of the accused No.1 and we also agreed to compromise under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.577 of 2022 of the Kothapeta Police Station, Guntur District. I have no interest to pursue with the complaint as we have compromised. I have no interest to pursue with the complaint as we have compromised. I am filing this affidavit with my free will and volition and praying this Hon’ble Court to compound the offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC in PRC No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and quash the proceeding against the petitioner. In view of the compromise permit the petitioner and me to compound the case and quash the proceedings, we are filing the joint memo”. 9. The contents of the joint memo in Crl.P.No.8393 of 2023 read as follows: “1. I submit that I file a complaint as Crime No.577 of 2022 of the Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District for the offences under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners herein. 2. It is submitted that at the intervention of the disinterested mediator, the petitioner and I compromised in the above said complaint and the 1st petitioner also agreed to compromise in the crime under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.926 of 2022 of the Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City NTR District. I have no interest to pursue with the complaint as we have compromised. I am filing this affidavit with my free will and volition and praying this Hon’ble Court to compound the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in the complaint and quash the proceeding against the petitioner. In view of the compromise permit the petitioner and me to compound the case and quash the proceedings. We are herein filing the joint memo in this regard.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the offence involved in this case is under Section 306 IPC, since it is the death of wife and husband by committing suicide and their parents and family members have nothing to do with their death and the accused in case and counter cases who are their kith and kin amicably settled their issue, this Court may exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as the continuation of the proceedings would cause injustice and abuse of process of law and also cause hardship to the petitioner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Neha Dhiman and others Vs State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-23004 of 2023 dated 25.09.2023 wherein, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 642 quashed the proceedings in view of the compromise between the parties. Similarly, the decision of this High Court in Perupogu Miriyamma and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another, I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2022 in Crl.P.No.5174 of 2022 is relied on to quash the proceedings in a crime registered for the offence under Section 306 IPC. On the same proposition, the decision of High Court of Gujarat in Chirag Giri Purshottam Giri Aparnathi Vs State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application (quashing) No.10983 of 2023, dt.12.10.2023 is relied. 11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in view of the peculiar circumstances and facts in the present case. 12. At this juncture, it is apropos to mention that the decision in Daxaben Vs. TheState of Gujarat & others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 642 had an occasion to deal with various decisions in Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of UP, (2008) 8 SCC 781 Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 : 1990 Supp SCC 686 Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, (1983) 1 SCC 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh, (2010) 11 SCC 226 Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 State of Panjab Vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (9) Scale 257 Narinder Singh Vs. State of Panjab, (2014) 9 SCC 466 State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SC 29 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, (2017) 9 SCC 641 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. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 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: 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 of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 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 under Section 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 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. 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.” 13. Perused the record. 14. When this Court questioned the complainant with regard to compromise, he reiterated the averments in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.2 of 2023 and 3 of 2023 and categorically stated that he voluntarily and willingly entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused without any force or pressure from any quarter and he has no objection to quash the proceedings against him. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex 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 & 3 of 2023 is allowed and the petitioner/accused and the 2nd 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. 15. Under these circumstances, it is a matter fit to quash the proceedings in both cases in view of the settlement. 16. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and Crime No.577 of 2022, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.