....

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings in PRC No. 29 of 2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC pertaining to Crime No. 271 of 2022 of Anakapalli Town Police Station.

2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well-wishers. In view of the settlement arrived at, between the parties, respondent No. 2/de facto complainant filed I.A. Nos. 2 of 2024 and 3 of 2024 seeking to permit them to compound the offence and to record the compromise.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioner herein/Accused and 2nd respondent herein are present before this Court. They produced their respective aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent have identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court has questioned 2nd respondent herein/de facto complainant with regard to compromise and she categorically stated to that extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein/Accused. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

4. In a decision in Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another , (2022) 8 Supreme 341 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab, which read thus:

“29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case It can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact t