Allowed

Karam Sagar v. the Public Prosector

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2022CRLP/1875/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and an application to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC. The Court quashed the proceedings for cheating, criminal breach of trust, rape, and unnatural offences after confirming the voluntary marriage and reconciliation between the accused and the complainant as wife.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compromise offences; Criminal Petition and IA allowed; proceedings in Crime No.13 of 2018 quashed.

Karam Sagar Vs the Public Prosector — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

I.A.No.1 of 2022

¶3

in Criminal Petition No.1875 of 2020 and Criminal Petition No.1875 of 2020

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

Criminal Petition No.1875 of 2020 is filed, under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.13 of 2018 of Kunavaram police station, East Godavari district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 312 IPC. The said crime was registered basing on a report lodged by 2^nd respondent.

¶6

During pendency of the Criminal Petition, 2^nd respondent/complainant filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 seeking to compound the offence by granting permission as contemplated under Section 320 (8) CrPC by quashing the aforesaid FIR. It is stated in the affidavit, deposed by 2^nd respondent, filed in support of the said petition that she is wife of petitioner/accused, and they both belong to same caste and same village, and had a love affair, and

¶7

¶8

they voluntarily and with free consent, had physical enjoyment several times, and after getting the job as Police Constable, as petitioner/accused started

¶9

neglecting her and postponing their marriage, due to frustration, she filed the aforesaid police report. It is further stated in the affidavit that thereafter, on the advice of elders and well wishers, they got married on 07.07.2018 and the marriage was registered with office of the Sub Registrar, Korukonda and they have been living happily and are leading happy marital life and in view of the same, she is not interested to continue the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner relied on a

¶11

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & another¹ , wherein it is held thus:

¶12

“The appellant and respondent No.2 were undisputedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 as stated by the respondent No.2). It is the say of the respondent No.2 that the

¶13

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649

¶14

¶15

consensual physical relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IPC. On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminal process. The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR. The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself. We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. wherein the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that

¶16

¶17

it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860. The Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside and the proceedings in pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016 stand quashed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.”

¶18

Today, the petitioner and 2^nd respondent are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. They filed copies of their respective Aadhar cards. Originals are produced for perusal of the Court. 2^nd respondent/complainant reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed by her in support of I.A. No.1 of 2022 and stated that she married the petitioner/accused and they are living happily by setting the subject dispute with him, and in view of the compromise arrived at, between the parties, she is not interested in pursuing the matter further, and she prays the Court to allow the Criminal Petition quashing the proceedings impugned therein.

¶19

¶20

A perusal of the Joint Memo, signed by both the parties, annexed to I.A.No.1 of 2022 goes to show the same version as stated in the affidavit filed by her in support of I.A. No.1 of 2022.

¶21

This Court is satisfied with the identification

¶22

of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. Having regard to the fact that the parties are leading happy marital life as husband and wife and in view of the compromise arrived at, between them and in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶23

in the decision relied on, by the learned counsel in Mandar Deepak Pawar’s case (1 supra), permission is accorded to the parties to compromise the offences alleged. In view of the compromise, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶24

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed. The proceedings in crime

¶25

No.13 of 2018 of Kunavaram police station are quashed.

¶26

¶27

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶28

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶29

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 05.09.2022. DRK

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

COMMON ORDER

I.A.No.1 of 2022

in Criminal Petition No.1875 of 2020

¶36

and Criminal Petition No.1875 of 2020

¶37

DRK

¶38

05.09.2022

Karam Sagar v. the Public Prosector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Sagar v. the Public Prosector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ganesh Vs State of Ap

N.J.Ramesh Vs State of Ap

Ravi Ramesh Vs The State of A.P.

Ch.Srinivas Vs State of A.P

Muppidi Yuva Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tommandru Apparao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh