Aiswarya vs The Inspector of Police

V.K. Mohanan, J.—Petitioner is the de facto complainant and victim in Crime No. 641/2014 of the Mueseum Police Station which was originally registered as Crime No. 555/2014 of Petta Police Station. Her case is that on the basis of the information furnished by her, above crime was registered against the 3rd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67B(e) of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act. Now, the case of the petitioner is that she do not want to proceed with the above case since she happened to give such information because of her frustration due to the stand taken by the 3rd respondent, when she expressed her desire to have love and company of the 3rd respondent as her future life partner. Therefore, she preferred this petition with a prayer to quash Annexure A1 (Crime No. 641/2014 of Mueseum Police Station).

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner, who is a lady, and she preferred the above complaint due to her immature approach. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after registering the above crime when the petitioner was taken to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, she deposed before the said Magistrate that she do not want to proceed with the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parents of the petitioner came to know about the filing of the criminal case and procedure only when the police came to their house and that the parents also are not interested in proceeding with the criminal case considering the future of the petitioner/victim.

On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor opposing the petition submitted that this kind of practice should not be encouraged since the police have already taken several steps towards the investigation in the crime, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner. According to the Public Prosecutor, if the allegation in the above crime is correct, it is very serious and heinous one and therefore, if the 3rd respondent is really responsible for the same, he should be punished for the same.

I am also sharing the view of the learned Public Prosecutor. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is only at the age of 19 years and she is a +2 student and awaiting for further academic career. If the criminal proceedings continue further, it will affect her academic career as well as her personal future life. It is also relevant to note that in the light of the above stand of the de facto complainant and if the investigation is proceeded and even if a trial is undertaken, according to me, in view of the changed stand of the victim there would not be any fruitful prosecution. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed..

It is further held as follows:-

......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........

According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the changed stand of the de facto complainant, who approached this Court to quash the proceedings pending against the accused, it is only just and proper to allow the present petition. It is also pertinent to note that since the de facto complainant has changed her version, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer wastage of judicial time which will amount to abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for.

In the result, this petition is allowed quashing Annexure A1 (Crime No. 641/2014 of Mueseum Police Station) and all further proceedings thereto.