Kadire Srikanth vs State Of Telangana And Another

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2021 of Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District.

The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said Crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 417, 420, 493, 496 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC.

Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused, Mr. M. Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged. He would further submit that during the pendency of the above crime, the parties entered into compromise amicably and pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 has come forward to withdraw the complaint and accordingly she has approached this Court by filing I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 to permit her to enter into compromise and to record the same by quashing the proceedings in the above Crime against the petitioner.

i) In support of the above contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaran Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 327 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner 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 petitioner and that the role of the petitioner in commission of offence is also specifically mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner - accused being Police Officer is not supposed to involve in the aforesaid offences. Further, the offence under Section - 376 (2) (n) of IPC is serious in nature and against society and, therefore, on the ground of compromise by the parties out of Court, proceedings cannot be quashed. In view of the same, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

Perusal of the contents of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner - accused came to contact with respondent No.2, a married women with two children, on Face book. Out of such acquaintance over Face book, the petitioner expressed her love towards respondent No.2 and asked her to give divorce to her husband otherwise, he would commit suicide. He also promised her that he would take divorce from his wife and thereafter both of them can lead happily. At the repeated persistence of the accused, respondent No.2 took divorce from her husband. Thereafter, the accused used to take her to Hotels and his sister’s house at Nampally, where she came to know that the accused was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, on 16.11.2020, she went to Siddipet and accused came there and then both of them went to her parent’s house, where they stayed for three days where their marriage was held on 20.11.2020. The accused also arranged operation for getting children.

i) The accused after using her physically, mentally, refused her company and did not turn up. When she asked him seriously, he went on evading her. Out of such mental agony, when respondent No.2 attempted to commit suicide, she was shifted to hospital at Karimangar for treatment. Thereafter, the accused informed her that he does not want to lead further life with her and that he advised her to live her separately. In view of the same, respondent No.2 herein has lodged a complaint with the police, who in turn, registered a case in Crime No.222 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein and the investigation 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 No.2 has decided to withdraw her complaint 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 petitioner in the aforesaid case.

In the affidavit accompanied by the aforesaid petitions, respondent No.2 herein has stated about her lodging the aforesaid complaint with police. She further stated that during pendency of the said case, at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the matter has been settled between her and the accused and accordingly, she has decided to withdraw her complaint. 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 considering the fact that case was registered for the aforesaid offences, it is relevant to refer to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan3 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.”

In Dr. Dhruvaran Murlidhar Sonar AIR 2019 SC 327, the accused and the complainant were working at the same place and both of them came to know each of them. So, the question of keeping something dark does not arise. Whereas, in the present case, the accused is working as a Sub-Inspector of Police and he came into contact with the de facto complainant over Face Book. Further, as per the contents of the complaint, the accused promised her to give divorce to his wife, but he did not do so. Thus, the facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are entirely different and, therefore, the said decision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case and so also the decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) 9 SCC 608.

As discussed supra, prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He being a Police Officer has exploited the victim sexually. The offence under Section - 376 (2) (n) of IPC is serious one and will have impact on the society.

In view of the above discussion and considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayan3 and also considering the fact that one of the offences alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and will have impact on the society, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime 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.