Dismissed

Pathepuram Naveen v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jul 2021CRLP/769/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner for alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC, despite a compromise between parties, holding such offences impact society and cannot be quashed merely due to settlement.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2020 were dismissed and consequently the Criminal petition was also dismissed, with pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pathepuram Naveen Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 769 OF 2020 ALONG WITH I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 OF 2O2O

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pathepuram Naveen, S/o.late Sattaiah, aged 26 yrs, Occ. Pvt. Employee. Rlo.42-22, Road No.3, Anjaiah Nagar, Jagadgirigutta, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, N/o. Pasnoor (V), Naqaram (M)' survapet (D)

¶8

...pErroNERs/A""rr*?.iinii,o\rj5.J[rrr#l

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...,,.RESPONDENT

¶11

Kum. l\rlede Blessy, D/o.Mede Prabhakar, aged 25 yrs, Occ. Asst. Professor, No.5-27,lndira Nagar, Venkateshwara Temple Road, Uppal, Nio.Pashthala^(V), Nalgonda District

¶12

...REspoNDENT/pETrroNER rN rA No.3 oF 2021

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Coud may be^pleased to quash the proceedings against the^petitioners in S.C. No. 301 OF 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Spl. SC/ ST Court, Ranga Reddy, at L.B.Nagar and^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

LA. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to grant interim stay of all further^proceedings against the^petitioners in S.C.^{No. 301} OF 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Spl. SC/ST Court, Ranga Reddy, at L.B.Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the I,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to permit the petitioner to compound the offences u/s 354-D, 420 IPC and U/sec.3⁽¹⁾ (r) (s) 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (POA) Act 2015

¶18

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Giounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to record the compromise between the^petitioner and the respondent^{No.1 in S.C.No.} . 301 OF 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Spl. SC/ST Court, Ranga Reddy, at L.B.Nagar.,

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the lVlemorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri P.DEVENDER,} Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the^Respondent No.1 and of Sri N.lndrasen Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent^No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.769 OF 202(l ALONG WITH LA.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2020

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Secti<,n - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shon^'Code") to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.301 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of Cases ur.rder the Scheduled Castes & the ScLeduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Ranga Reddy Distlict at L.B.Nagar.

¶25

The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said S.C. The offences aileged against him are under Sections - 3 54D & 420 of IPC and Sections - 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1,)89 (for short 'Act, 1989').

¶26

I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 are fiied by responclent No.2 - de facto^{complainant (victim)seeking to permit her} -o^enterinto compromise and to compound the offences against the 'rccused b and quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.

¶27

Heard Mr. P. Devender, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and Mr. N. Indrasen Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 de facto complainant, and also leamed Asr;istant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I - Stat e.

¶28

Crl.P. No.769 of ?.a21

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner - accused would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him. The petitioner did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the above Case. The charge sheet lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. However, leamed counsel would funher submit that after lodging the complaint by respondent No.2 with the police and after registration of the crime against the accused, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 came forward to settle the matter amicably at the instance of elders and well-wishers. Accordingly they filed a joint memo before this Court to permit them to enter into compromise and to compound the offences by quashing the proceedings. He would further submit that in support of the said compromise, respondent No.2 - de facto complainant filed I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 accornpanying her affidavit. Therefore, learned counsel sought to compound the offences and quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused.

¶30

Thti learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has given consent for compromise and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner - accused.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that after completion of investigation including the examination of relevant witnesses and recording their statements under Section - 16i of Cr.P.C., the police filed charge sheet against

¶32

KL,J Crl P. No.769 of2020

¶33

¶34

the accused for the offences mentioned above. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner and the sam: have to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. The petitioner is innocent and that he did not commit any offence much less alleged offences etc. are all have to be proved during trial, but the same cannot be considered at this stage. Mere entering into compromise by the parties is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. In view of the same, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor sought to dismisr; the present petrtron.

¶35

As per charge sheet, respondent No.2 / v:ctim (LW.l) belongs to the scheduled caste (Mala) community, while LWs.2 and 3 are her parents. The accused belongs to Backward Bas..e (Kummari) Community. Respondent No.2 and the accused are n,:ighbourhood villagers of Pasthala and Pasnoor of Nagaram Manrlal, Suryapet District and classmates from 7th to 10th Class at ZPHS School, Pasnoor. The accused completed B.Tech., Course, while LW.1 completed her Post Graduate Course in Chemistrv and they are working in different private organizations. Their acquaintance ultimately turned into love. The accused made LW.1 trt believe that he would marry her and he also expressed his willingnesr; to mary her over phone. Since they were in love, they used to roam together and took some photographs jointly when they went outside. The mother of accused did not accept their marriage proposal as brtth belong to different community mentioned above. Accordingly, on 30.08.2018,

¶36

Crl.P. No.769 of 20!

¶37

¶38

the accused contacted LW. I over her mobile and informed her that his mother is against their marriage and further advised her to marry some other person humiliating her caste. He also abused her touching her caste name. In view of the sarne, LW.1 requested the police to take necessary action against the accused.

¶39

Basing on the said complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the police have registered a case in Crime No.g72 of 2018 against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶40

In view of the above, prima facie, there are specific allegations made against the petitioner herein which are serious in nature. The allegations that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged and that he did not commit any offence, much less the alleged offences and that he was implicated in the aforesaid C.C. etc. are all to be adjudicated by the trial Court during trial, but not by this Court in a petition filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. Mere entering into compromise by the parties is also no ground to consider the petition for quashing the proceedings. Further, it is neither a matrimonial dispute between the spouses, nor a commercial / civil dispute. On the other hand, the offences involved in the present case are the offences which will have impact on the society. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the parameters laid down by the Apex Cour-t in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayanr which are as under:

¶41

'^zore 1s;^sccao3

¶42

KL,J lrl.P. No.769 of2020

t I

) )

"i) that the power conferred under Section .,g2 of the Code to quash the criminal proceeclings lor the non-compoundable oft'ences unJer Section 320 of the Code can be exercir;ed having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrirronial relationship or family disputes rLnd when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶47

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offenr:es like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offenr:es are not private in nature and have a seric,us irnpact on society;

¶48

iii)xxxx;

¶49

iv)xxxx;

¶50

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the crimirral proceedings in respect of non-compoundatrle offences, which are private in nature and do r ot have a serious impart on society, on the grould that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of tre accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc

¶51

Crl.P. No.769 of

¶52

¶53

11, In view of the above discussion and also considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narayanr and also considering the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are the offences which will have impact on the society, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime merery on the glound that the parties have entered into compromise.

¶54

¶55

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 are dismissed and consequently the Criminal petition is also dismissed.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶57

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶58

¶59

Sd/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' car\ SECTION OFFICER

¶60

I The Special Judge, Special Court for SC/ ST, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Naoar 2 Two ccs to the^pubtii p,osecrioi, Hish-c;;h'f; rilsi;l,"ii"r"",rJril] "r. Hyderabad (OUT) 3 One CC to Sri P.Devender, Advocate (OpUC)

¶61

4 One CC to Sri N.tndrasen Reddy, Advbcate (OPUC) Two CD Copies 6 One Spare Copy Kj

¶62

HIGH COURT

¶63

DATEDt20l0712021

¶64

ir-r
c
():) 11 AUBstl C)
,.)

* i)

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRLP.No.769 of 2020 ALONG WITH I.A.NOS,2^{AND 3 OF 2O2O}