Gunja Sandeep vs Kanthakatla Shivananda Reddy

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.275 of 2020 pending on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 365, 498 and 109 of IPC.

Heard Ms. Sailaja Bandari, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused, Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - de facto complainant and victim, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged. She would further submit that during the pendency of the above crime, the parties have entered into compromise amicably and pursuant to the same, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have come forward to withdraw the complaint and accordingly they have approached this Court by filing I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 to permit them to enter into compromise and to record the same by quashing the proceedings in the above Crime against the petitioners herein. With the said submissions, she sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in view of the compromise entered between the parties.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor by referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan 2019 (5) SCC 403 would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and that the role of each of the petitioner herein in the commission of offences is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Further, the offence under Section - 365 of IPC though private in nature will have impact on the society and, therefore, on the ground of compromise by the parties out of Court, proceedings cannot be quashed. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

Perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that respondent No.2, victim - LW.5 is the daughter of respondent No.1. The petitioners herein and the victim are studying in St. Mary’s College. In the month of June, 2019, the marriage of the victim was solemnized with LW.4. After the marriage, the victim used to attend the college. Knowing the marriage of the victim, accused No.1 bore grudge against her and forced her to love him. Since the victim refused his proposal, accused No.1 decided to kidnap her and then informed the same to accused Nos.2 to 4. Then, all of them hatched a plan to kidnap the victim and pursuant thereof, on 07.09.2019, accused No.1 informed the same to accused No.2, who arranged Vento Car bearing registration No.AP 09 CM 1110 and accused Nos.1 and 3 came to Shamshabad. On the said date, the victim boarded the bus at Siddanthi Bus Stop and got down at Aramghar Bus Stop. In the meanwhile, accused Nos.1 to 3 followed her and forcefully kidnapped the victim in the car and fled away from there with an intention to avoid the arrest by police and information about their movements. Accused No.1 informed accused No.4 to book a Cab and accordingly he booked the same. Later accused Nos.1 and 3 went to IDPL, Balanagar and accused No.1 forcefully took the victim into the Cab and went to Tirupati, Shirdi and roamed there. On 16.09.2019, accused No.1 and the victim returned back to City from Shirdi. In view of the same, all the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.

Initially, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.1, the police registered a case that the respondent No.2 went missing and took up investigation. During the investigation and after apprehending the petitioners herein and recording the statement of the victim, the police altered sections of law to Sections - 365, 498 and 109 of IPC. The Police after recording the statements of the witnesses and consideration of the same and the material collected, filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C. No.275 of 2020 by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar and the same is pending.

During the pendency of the investigation, at the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the parties herein have entered into compromise and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have decided to withdraw the proceedings and pursuant to the same, she filed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 seeking permission to record compromise and to compound the offences in pursuance of the said compromise by quashing proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid C.C.

In the affidavit accompanied by the aforesaid petitions, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have stated about the lodging of the aforesaid complaint with police. They further stated that during pendency of the said case, at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the matter has been settled between them and the accused and accordingly, they have decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings. Both the parties have also filed a joint memo to that effect. The said joint memo is placed on record.

In view of the above said submissions and the fact that subject Calendar Case was registered for the aforesaid offences, it is relevant to refer to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan1 which are as under:

“i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

As discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioners. Further, offence under Section - 365 of IPC though a private offence will have impact on the society as contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

In view of the above discussion and considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan1 and also considering the fact that one of the offences alleged against the petitioners will have impact on the society, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. merely on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are dismissed. Consequently, the present Criminal Petition is also dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.