In Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing POCSO proceedings based on compromise, the High Court held that such recent heinous offences against a minor cannot be quashed by compromise regardless of settlement. Petitions dismissed.
Criminal Petition No. 5458 of 2021 and IA Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021 are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OFAUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI
t.A.NOS.3 AND 4 0F2021
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5458OF 2021
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENT
, ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN I.A.NOS.3& 4 OF 2021
CRIMINAL PETITIO NNO:5458 0F 2021
Petition under section482 of cr.P.c praying that in the clrcumstancesstated in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the HighCourt may be pleased toquaShS.C'No.536of20lTonthefileoftheFaStTrackSpecialJudgeForTrial of cases under PocsoAct -Cum-lX Additional District And sessionsJudge (FTC)' RangaReddyDistrictatL.B.Nagarbyacquittingthepetitionersandpasssuchother order or orders asthis Hon'ble court deemsfit and proper in the circumstancesof the case
LA. NO: 3 OF 2021
Petition under Section 320(6) Rlw 482 of Cr.P.C trayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof Crimin al Petition,the High Court may bepleased togrant permissionto compound and compromisethe S.C.536/2017 on the file of the Hon'bleFast Track SpecialJudgte for Trialof Cases under POCSO Act cum lX AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge(FCT), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
l.A. NO: 4OF 2021
Petition under Section 32O (2) Nw 482 of Cr.P.C lraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the compound anc compromise the petitioners/accu sed by setting aside the S.C.536/2017 on the file of Fast Track Special Judge for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act cum lX Alditional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing rhe arguments of Sri G. Allabakash, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Y. Nagaiah, Advocate for the Respondenl Nos.2 to 5.
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 ln/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.5458 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in 5.C.No.536 of 2017 on the fite of the Fast Track Speciat Judge for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act-cum-lX Additionat District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, fiLed this CriminaI Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above S.C., on theground of compromise.
Atong with the Criminal Petition, LA.Nos.3and 4 of 2021cameto be fited by respondents 2 to 5 seekingpermission tocompound the offences and to record compromise.
The facts which ted to fiting of thepresentCriminal Petition are as under:-
The contents of the charge sheetwoutd disclose that the victim girt has studied upto 6th standard and haitsfromSundaraiahnagar, Suryapet and she betongs to SchedutedCaste Madigacommunity' Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are theparents of the victim girt. The petitioners betonged to Reddy Caste and areresident of Gayatri Apartments, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad'The petitioners engaged the victimgirl as maid servantthrough respondent No.4 herein during the month of January,2016 and paid Rs.10,000/' towards satary to the parents of the victim. Since theparents of the victim girl belongsto poor famity and residing atSurypet, taking advantageof the innocence of minor victimgirt, the petitioners havestartedassauttingher sexuatty' The 1'tpetitionerhad r"i,lui'int"r.orrsewith the victimon the day of
Rakhi festivatand also on the afternoon of Bathukammafestivatin his bed room.The2nd petitioner had assautted the victimgirl sexuattyby touching herprivate parts and atso showing his penis ir the house in order toyietd his sexuatdesires.lt is further atLegedthat the victim girl has not beenprovided proPerfood and ctothing by the petitionersand she was made todo att the househotd worksin the nouse and the petitioners are not attowedthe victim girl to go out and that the parents of the victimgirl whenever contacted the petitioners ove- mobite phone, thepetitionersare not attowedthe victim girt to talk to her parents' Thus,takingundueadvantageoftheinnocenceofminot.victimgirland poor f.inanciat status, thepetitioners have sexualtyassallted the victim girt.
After comptetion ofinvestigation, the potice fited chargesheet against thepetitioners, whichwas takencognizance as S'C'No'536of 2017 on the fite of theFast Track Special Judge for Trial of Casesunder POCSO Act-cum'lX AdditionatDistrict and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.The petitioners were trie(l for the offences punishabte under Sections 376(21 (h) (f), 354,374, 375 (e) oflPC, Section 3 read with 4 of thePreventionof ChitdrenfrornSexualOffences Act, Section 3(2) (v) ofthe Scheduted Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,201 5, Sections16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour Abotition Act and Sections75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Chitdren ) Act,201 5.Whenthe case is posted for the examination of the petitioners/ accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners fited this Criminal Petitjon toquash the proceedings in the said case on the ground of comprortise.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
J
Now the point that arises for consideration is ,,Whether the High Court has power under Section 482 of Cr,p.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings for serious offences tike rape and pOCSO Act, on the ground of setttement between the offenders and the victim and her famity members"?
ln what cases power to quash the criminaI proceedings or complaint or F.l.R. may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute is no more res integro in view of the decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court of lndia in the case of GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PIJNJABi. After anatyzing the whote gamut of the case law on the subject, in para No.6'l of the said judgment, the Hon'bte Supreme Court has summarized the [ega[ position as under: -
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or comp[aint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under section 320 of the Code. lnherent power is of wide ptenitude with 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 justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
ln what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or comptaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settted their dispute woutd 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 serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingty quashed even though the victim or victim's famity and the offender have settted the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Simitarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in
' lzotzyto scc lo3
retationto the offences under specialstatutes[ike the Prsvention ofCorruptionActortheoffencescomm,ittedbypubticServants white workingin that capacity, etc'; cannot providefor rnybasis involvingsuch c'ffences"' forquashing criminalproceedings (emphasis suPPtied)
Theprinciptestaid down in the abovedecision are reiterated in the taterdecision renderedin the case of NARTNDERSINtiH vs' SfATE OF PUNJAB &Others2 'As to under whatcircumstance';the criminal proceedings in anon'compoundabtecase coutd be quasheciwhen thereis settlementbetween the parties,the court has referred to the guidetines taid downin the case of GianSinghand has hetd that if the offence is heinous orseriousin nature, then it has to be treated as crimeagainst the societyand not against the individuat atone' Then it becomesthe solemn dutyof the State to punish the crime doer' lt is hetdby the Hon'bLe SupremeCourt"thateven if there is a setttem(:nt/ compromise between theperpetrator of the crimeand the victinr' that is of no consequence.
ln the saidcase, the Hon'bte Supremecourt has considered whetherquashing of proceedings under Section307 of lrrdianPenalCode coutd be hetdas fatting under the categoryof heittous and serious offence.Anatyzingthe variousaspectsof the prosecution case' the Hon'bte SupremeCourt has hetdas under:
"29.2. When the parties havereachedthe setttemerlt and on that basis petitionfor quashingthe criminalproceedings is fited' the guiding factor in suchcaseswoutd be to secure;
(i) ends ofjustice,or (ii) to preventabuse of theprocessof anyCourt' White exercisingthe power the High court is to fornlan opinionon either of theaforesaidtwo objectives'
'?(zora) 6 scc qoo
5
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences [ike murder, rape, dacoity, etc. such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Simitarty, for the offences atteged to have been committed under speciat statute tike theprevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by pubtic servants white working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."
Time and again the Apex Court hetd that "The Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has the power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingty and with caution. The offences, which would fatl in the category of heinous and serious, such offences have to be generalty treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Setttement between the parties in relation to such offence cannot be given the seal of approval by the Court". (See fhe Stote of ltladhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and onothef and in Sfafe of tAadhya Prodesh v. Kalyan Singha).
Rape, undisputedty, is one of the most depraved act. lt is not onty an offence against an individual and it is categorized as an offence against the society at large, In the instant case, it is atteged that the petitioners have sexuatty assautted the victim girt, who was betow 18 years of age and the'lst petitioner atso committed rape on the victim girt on Rakhi festival and atso on Bathukamma festival and the offences
'rttR2OtgSC llOO {AIR2ol9SCil2
atleged against the petitioners are under Sections 376 (2) (h) (f), 354, 374, 375 (e) of lPC, Section 3 read with 4 of the Prevention of Chitdren from Sexual Offences Act, Section 3 (2) (v) of the Schedu,ed Castes and Scheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendmerrt Act, 201 5, Sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act ard Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenite Justice (Care andprotection of Chitdren) Act, 2015. Further, the entire triat has been compteted and wren the case is posted for the examination of the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.p.C., the petitioners have fited the present Criminat petition, apprehending resutt of the Sessions Case. Admittedty, the offences alterged against the petitioners woutd fatt in the category of heinous and s.rious offences and commission of those offences witt have a serious impact on the society at large. Hence, even though there is a setttement between the parties, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the atteged offences cannot be quashed.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and sirce the entire evidence has been compteted and now onty to escape from ctutches of law after triat, the petitioners have come forward with a compromise proposat, which cannot be encouraged in a heinous c-ime as it witt defeat the object of the Pocso Act.
The offences alteged against the petitioners are serious and grave in nature committed against the minor victim girt, which are not compoundable offences and as such the request made by the victim girt and her family members cannot be accepted. Hence, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 are dismissed.
\
7
Accordingly, the Criminat petition is dismissed. Consequentty,
misce({aneous petitions, if any, shatt stand dismissed.
Sdi. T. KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
(Along with a Copy of Joint Memo) gbr
HIGHCOURT
DATED:11t}gl2021
COMMONORDER
l.A.Nos.3&4of 2021 IN/AND Cnup.tto.5458ol 2021
S 1a rc
(
a:
z
i 01 tiEPzozl
*
DISMISSINGTHE l.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2021 AND CRIMINALPETITION
x
r\
Tll:. [.rcA,.,, i,/,.r\r-) 9 oi l0l i in r,t .^ ('1 i.1,. ,111 )("(\f or:0lr I I (.:\ ('r-'rl.
I \l..rlr . llr ltlt.rr.rtJr lrulr.r,. I.i-.rrr,. \ ,,. \1.,r:l llt\ .r,,llr:tj:,rr Ii..,.:.,r-. l\tI5lt.r1.l. r_r.rt .ir\oL .i) t,.,.rt . ;;..:lIrir'111-,11.. l( r,. ll.,.. L_ . -,. ;. rl,t" ri ' I r.: .t,r,t,.t ntt-ni:r. (i:.,,,tn I,, ,, l, ...,,.
l, .Jcclir.,:riir' Srrrlltakar Iteclci., . \ , . t :1. ]i:t.r ..- r ;rrtl,;r l.l ...1, il-. rl .i.'., i . .. ,. ( )t .. L ...i ;, i.ii,,.'1.. :- 1l ': ri!, : rr' ilistrict Do . .l\i
I I I,.,,.,. .i i..l l,l-li rl iiclL i,r' i;:; i,ul-,il,' I)rCSCCT,iL)i.. . llS it { o:rr, .r''.jit.lir-'l,frrr.c lr,r. litt.
Z Kulr,l. Ka11qlssfi!,a( \r\ &r./Lr- ' ,llli.li, '.{ ' ( ( ,. ,..1i -i,r)i.llIl ', r'. rl . : . ,: ...i :,.. .. r i ;i, lliti i ir-.rtt r, ',.r ,t., I ,iir \.,,.r. , ,.i , rr r rr r,ilj9 j/ri1.S l)dr^4 & . .t, :( r,...q111. -.1 -::, \ . ":i()Nl I .l )ri11r;1y,'1 i-'t.,:;i11 |t.c., itjtir..lir Lr.t!i.r. :.. I:_L. r,i.ir l) istricr C.{)o -\J t. l- I - '':',-1t' r1,:f ,, 1",2..1V+* I i-rlt\ it.ril.' L. l,(ili \lW uwtolgv$1cpe4.Llfi gonai:, i ,.r'r. L, ,li i)lwyrtpctDt::icr- ''il( :r,t I ii
:r,t I ii
,,.'..,€]
)
JOI\l il\llr, 1., | , lt' 'llI pAl?.'l'li ,
'r iq 51,11 , i,.' i I' r!rr(, ,,,,: , I..r ll19p64deXl_.L!\l Giy.) huvc selllril llt,i. ,llartcl. r.rtri:.ri,ic r,. i,. r,.;rr'lll_r (,oLrr.l In li,:, .r ,. tr, I r., lrr'Lrlro;1.'1.;,11r.1 _ I{.'..,p,rit.1.. 1 \ . r..l. rr,, L,lr.iccl.,,:: .. .. l lirt :',.(."i1(; l()-r o, trrc rlrr- rri 1i ,.. i :. 'i r':i,,ii.l!peciar JLrt.lse r.i,. ,;,..r r,, ri L',tltjl;.i,.'..;.l'iL(.Littl-l,]^'..l.j l,ristlrcl 'I lr:. i1,.'t.r. -. lrt . -.
.- i.9
sai.tfe.la. knf 3 9a+fur1, r P uqj fi, t t q t-T4 Y+kr":'^h' C-otxlq l-
)
4ffi
q. '
COtt4"{t) l-nr; t/ zrl:hL"".
Att'a
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court has power to quash criminal proceedings for serious offences like rape and POCSO on ground of compromise.
Whether settlement between offender and victim family can be ground for quashing proceedings in heinous non-compoundable offences.
Whether compromise proposal after trial completion in heinous POCSO case can be accepted to dismiss proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶43
GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Narendra Singh vs. State of Punjab & OthersReferred¶49
NARENDAR SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & Others
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv GurjarReferred¶56
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan SinghReferred¶56
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Medipally Bharath Kumar Reddy
Medipally Sudhakar Reddy
The State of Telangana
Kum. Kanuka Srikala
Kanuka Saidamma
Kanuku Lingaiah
G. SRI DEVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
