Dismissed

Jatin Agarwal v. T.Harshini

Telangana HC9 Sept 2021CRLP/1703/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana rejected the petition seeking to quash proceedings in a case involving rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that heinous offences cannot be quashed merely due to a settlement between parties.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and the proceedings against the petitioner for rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation were left intact.

Jatin Agarwal Vs T.Harshini — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1703 OF 2021

Between:

Jatin Agaruual,

...PETITIONER

AND

T.Harshini, S/o T.Krishna, 2. The State of Telangana, through^{Public Prosecutor, Telangana,High Co rt} .,.RESPONDENT

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Nlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to quash all the^proceedings against the^{petitioner-accusedin PRC 204 of 2020on} the file of Hon'ble vl Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate cum Vl AJCJ R R District at} L. B. Nagar.

¶12

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri P.KANTHI} KIRAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner^{and of the Public Prosecutoron behalfof} the Respondent No.2 and of Sri^{Vangipuram Krishna, Advocatefor the Respondent} No.1.

¶13

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶14

Kj'".'

¶15

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.^SRI DE/I

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1703^{of 20')-l}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The petitioner, who is the sole^accused in^{?.R.C.No.204 of} 2020, on the file of the Vl-Additional^{Metropolitan 1{agistrate-cum-} VI-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga^{RedCyDistrict at} L.B.Nagar, filed this Criminal^{Petition underSection 482 Cr'P C. to} quash the proceedings in the above^{P.R.C. A char5;e sheet came to} be filed against the petitioner for^{the offences punishable under} Sections 376,417 and 420 of LP.C.

¶19

The contents of the charge sheet would^disclose that^the petitioner/ accused is a resident of Chennai,^{Tamilnaclu State and ls} working in YES bank. In the month of January,^{2t)19,the accused} was introduced to the 1't respondent/ de facto complainant^through Bharath Matrimony and exchanged their mobile nutnbers each other and started conversation and the petitioner^{used to talk with the L$} respondent and also used to making video calls and chatting.^Due to eye sight problem of the 1.t respondent, the^{petitioner called her} to Chennai for treatment and as such on 06.09.2079 the^1't respondent went to Chennai and the petitioner^{receivedher, taken} to a room at Panasi Residence (Lodge) and had se'xual intercourse with her by luring her that he will get marry her and both of them stayed up to 08.09.2019 irl that hotel. Further, the petitioner came to Dilsukhnagar, taken a room at White Ridge at I)urga Nagar on

¶20

Ki ,,.{

¶21

1,8.01.2020, stayed for two days^{and had sexualintercoursewith her} in that lodge and further on 08.08.2020^{alsohe cameto the same} lodge and stayed there and at^{that time alsohe had intercoursewith} her. Finally the petitioner told^{her that he is not interested in} marrying her and also told^{that in the year2019 he got engagement} with one Disha and blocked^{the contact numberof the 1't} respondent. The charge sheet^{was takencog-nizance as P'R'C'No'204} of 2020 on the file of^{the Vl-AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate-} cum-Vl-Additionai Junior^Civil iudge,^{Ranga Reddy Districtat} L.B.Nagar. The present^{Criminai Petition is filed to quashthe} proceedings in the said^P.R.C.

¶22

At the time when the^{matter was takenup for hearing, learned} Counsel for the^{petitionerwouldsubmit that the 1't resPondent had} filed an affidavit stating^{that she has no objectionfor quashing the} proceectings against^{the petitioner as the petitioner married her on} 23.09.2020 in Arya^{Samai,Hyderabad, with the consent oI their} parents and they were^{leading happymarital life at Chennai'}

¶23

Heald both sides and^{perused the record.}

¶24

Now the point that arises^{for consideration is "Whetherthe} High Court has^{power under Section482 of Cr'P.C' for quashing of} criminal proceedings^{for serious offences like rape,on the groundof} settlement between^{the offenderand the victim and her family} members" ?

¶25

¶26

In what cases power to quash the crrmlna proceedings or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute is no more res integrn in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in^'he case of GIAN SINGH t;s. STATE OF PUNIAB1 . After analyzing^':he whole gamut of the case law on the subject, in paragraph No.61 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has sumnrarized the legal position as under:-

¶27

"The position that emerges from the above di.scrrssion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court .n quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and diJferent from the po*er given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude wit.r no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of ustice, or

¶28

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of anv court.

¶29

In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised whele the offender and tlLe victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and sericus offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victirn's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of^(lorruption Act or the offences commi*tted by public servants while v,orking in that

¶30

'^{1zorz; to scc :o:}

¶31

Ki.,,{

¶32

capacity/ etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.,, (emphasis supptied)

¶33

The principles laid down in the above decision are reiterated in the later decision rendered in the case of NARINDER SINGII os, STATE OF PUNIAB I Others2. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case could be quashed when there is settlement between the parties, the Court has referred to the guidelines laid down in the case of Gian Singh and has held that if the offence is heinous or serious in nature, then it has to be keated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Then it becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the crime doer. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,'that even iI there is a settlement/compromise between the perpekator of the crime and the victim, that is of no consequence.r'

¶34

In the said case, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court has considered whether quashing of proceedings under Sectlon 307 of Indian Penal Code could be held as falling under the category of heinous and serious offence. Analyzing the various aspects of the prosecution case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶35

"29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure;

¶36

(r) ends of justice, or (it) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶37

: 1zor,t; o scc +oo

¶38

\4tri1e exercising^{the powerthe High court is to form a;r opinion on} either of the aforesaid two^objectives

¶39

29.3. Such a Power^is not^{to be exercisedin thosepror;ecutions} which involve heinous^{and serious offenceso1 mental} depravity or offences^{likemurder, rape, dacoity, :tc.such} offences are not private in^{nature and have a seriousimPact on} society. Similarly, for^{the offencesalleged to have been} cornrnittect under special^{statute like the Prev€ntion of} Corruption Act or the^{offences committedby public servants} while working in that capacity^{are not to be quashed merely} on the basis of compromise between^{the victim andthe} offender."

¶40

Time and again the Apex Court^{held th;rt "ThePower} conferred under Section^{482 of the Code is to be dis ;inguishedfrom} the power which lies in the^{Court to compoundthe offences under} Section 320 of Code. No doubt,^{underSection 482 of the Code,the} High Court has the power to^{quash the criminal} Pro(reedings^{even in} those cases which are not comPoundable,^{where the parties have} settled the matter between themselves.^{However, this power is to be} exercised sparingly and with caution.^{The offences, which would} fall in the category of heinous and serious,^{such off,:nceshave to be} generally treated as crime against^{the society and not againstthe} individual alone. Settlement^{between the parties in relation to such} offence cannot be given the seal^{of apProvalby the Court".(See The} State of Madhya Pradesh^{o. Dhrua} Guriar^{and anothefiand in} State of Madhya^{Prailesha. Kalyan Singha).}

I e.tn zotg sc t to6

o Atn 20t9 sc 3 tz

Ks.,g'

It is not in dispute that^{heinousand serious offences such as} murder, rape, NDPS and dacoity^{etc. cannot be quashed despite the} fact that the victim or the^{family of the victim has settied the dispute.} Rape, undisputedly, is one of the^{mostdepraved act. It is not only} an offence against an^{individualand it is categorizedas an offence} against the society at^1arge.

¶45

It is also well settled that it^{may not be right and proper for} this Court to quash the^{proceedingsfor the offenceof rape under} Section 376 of the IPC^{so1e1y on the ground of settlementbetween} the parties (See Parbatbhai^{Aahir a, Stateof Guiarats,Anita Maria} Dias o, State of Maharashtra6),

¶46

ln Shimbhu o. State of HaryanaT^{the Apex Court has heldas} follows:

¶47

"Further,^{a compromiseenteredinto between the parties cannot be} construed as a leading^{Iactor based on whichlesserpunishment} can be awarded.^{Rape is a non-compoundableoffenceand it is an} offence against the^{societyand is not a matter to be left for the} parties to compromise and^{settle. Sincethe Court cannot always} be assured that the^{consent givenby the victim in compromrsing} the case is a genuine^{consent, thereis every chance thatshe might} have been pressurized by^{the convicts or the trauma undergone} by her all the years might^{have compelled her to opt for a} compromlse. In fact,^{accepting this proposition will put an} additional burden on^{the victim. The accusedmay use all his} inJluence to pressurize^{her fora compromise.So, in the interestof} justice and to avoid unnecessary^{pressure/harassmentto the} victim, it would not bc^{safc in considering the compromise}

¶48

'^{(zo t;) s scc oqt} o i2oi8) i scc 290 '^{AIR20 l4 sc739}

¶49

¶50

allivedatbetweenthepartiesinrapecasestobeagroun.lforthe Courttoexercisethed.iscretionarypowerundertheprovisoof Section^{376 (2) of I'P'C'"}

¶51

In the^{instant case also the allegation againstthe} petitioner/^{accusedis that the petitionerby giving fa)se promiseto} marry^{her, had sexualintercoursewith her and the olfences alleged} against^{the petitioner are underSectionsg76'417 anl 420 of I'P C'} Admittedly,^{the offencesalleged against the petitionerwould fa11 in} the category^{of heinous and seriousoffencesand :ommissionof} those offences^{wiil have a serious impact on the srrcietyat large'} Hence,^{even thoughthere is a settlementbetweenihe parties' the} criminal^{proceedingsinitiated against the Petitioner/ accused for the} alleged^{offences cannot be quashed'}

¶52

For the^{aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid downin} the above^{decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Cour,tand since the} offences^{alleged against the petitioner/accusecl trre seriousand} grave^{in nature, whichare not compoundable offencesand as such} the request^{madeby the parties cannotbe accepted'}

¶53

dismissed' Accordingly,^{theCriminal Petition is} ConsequentlY,^{miscellaneousPetitions,if anY, sha1l standc1osed.}

¶54

¶55

'tFr,:tiitiil.$;bi:::::T.I:1::::;"lfl^{:l'l:'::ffi ;::1"'"}

¶56

;H-i",til!"',iil*$t,r**'[fr^{ii]^t**"":?:iE"J'i3'} d H:33*?t3i, Kt..i

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1703 ot2021

1* 1i -lc- s
(
(
ff 14 sEP2021 i
,q / /
\ t. r,9 /
, t-/

¶62

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.

¶63

r{<br>\5
FJ-

Jatin Agarwal v. T.Harshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Agarwal v. T.Harshini

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

Janaveni Raju and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Erugu Balram, R.R.District Vs Vivekananda School and Anr, R.R.District

Naini Rajender Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Anish Kumar Dundoo Vs State of Telangana

Dumpala Srikar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Lakshmi Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana and another