ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Koiii Hema Kumar – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. – Respondents
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 in/and
Crl.P.No.220 of 2024
Decided on 7.2.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354-D and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 439 – Gang rape and criminal intimidation – Compounding of offence – Compromise between parties – De facto complainant has categorically stated that she has amicably and voluntarily entered into compromise with petitioner/accused and she has no interest to prosecute case against him – It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission to compound offence – As parties have entered into compromise, chances of conviction are bleak and remote – Continuation of impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court – It is a fit case to quash proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – There is no need to pass any order under Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER (COMMON)
Criminal Petition No.220 of 2024 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’) is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.219 of 2023 on the file of Muvvala-vanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed to permit the petitioner/respondent No.2 in the criminal petition to compound the offence under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
3. I.A.No.3 of 2023 is filed under Sections 320(2) and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to record the compromise and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.219 of 2023 of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
4. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that the complainant, Ponnapalli Rajani, is working as Senior Associate, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam. She got married on 19.12.2010 with Sarvepalli Radha Krishna and they were blessed with two children. The petitioner/accused who is working in the same branch used to harass the complainant. During Covid-19 pandemic, when the complainant was on leave, the petitioner/ accused obtained two empty cheques with a promise that he will withdraw the amount and handover the same to her. Thereafter, he failed to handover the amount to the complainant. Further, on 14.05.2023, he went to the house of the complainant, attacked and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.219 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC was registered by Muvvalavanipalem police. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition has been filed.
5. Pending the proceedings in the main petition before this Court, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 were filed under Sections 320(6) and 320(2) CrPC and 482 CrPC by the complainant stating 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 between both the parties, they sought permission to compound the offence and to record the compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings in Crime No.219 of 2023 of Muvvalavanipalem police station, Visakhapatnam District.
6. On 24.01.2024, when the matter came up for consideration, the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/complainant were present before this Court. They produced copies of their identity proof. They were also identified by their respective counsels. Both of them stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise. The 2nd respondent expressed her willingness for quashing the crime. However, since the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not receive instructions, he could not instruct the police to attend before this Court for the purpose of identifying the de facto complainant; the matter is adjourned to 02.02.2024 to enable the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to report regarding the settlement arrived between the parties.
7. Today, i.e., 07.02.2024, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed on record the letter, dated 07.02.2024, of the Station House Officer, M.V.P Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, addressed to the Public Prosecutor, enclosing the consent letter of the complainant. In the said consent letter, it is stated by the complainant that both the complainant and the accused came to an amicable understanding before their elders and they are going to compromise the dispute in the petition pending before this Court.
8. The terms of compromise were 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 read as follows:—
“(1) It is submitted that basing on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the Police Muvvalavanipalem registered a case in FIR No.219 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
(2) It is su
Monica Kumar (Dr.) vs. State of UP
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gourishetty Mahesh
Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal
State of Panjab vs. Gurdial Singh
Offence can be compounded and quashed where chances of conviction are bleak and remote.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent an abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice, especially in cases whe....
A redundant criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.
The High Court possesses the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when parties reach a compromise, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if a compromise is reached, provided the nature of the crime allows for such action and the possibility of conviction is deemed remote.
Court allows party-initiated compromise under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing IPC charges, emphasizing the futility of trials post-settlement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.