02-CRIA-69-2016.doc Andreza IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2016 ----------------------------- Siddesh Juvekar, Son of Dashrath Juvekar, 26 years old, Indian National, Resident of House No. 1320, Rangalim, Velim, Salcete, Goa, and presently lodged in Central Jail, Colvale, Mapusa, Goa. … Appellant V e r s u s 1. S T A T E (Through Police Inspector, Colva Police Station, Colva-Goa. 2. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay , Panaji, Goa. … Respondents Mr. S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pavithran AV and Ms. S. Shaikh, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents-State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE: 8th AUGUST 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. On being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao, by a Judgment pronounced on 03.09.2016 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2014, the Appellant has filed the 8th August 2025 2025:BHC-GOA:1497 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc present Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The appeal came to be admitted on 15.09.2016 and was listed for hearing from time to time. 2. On 25.07.2025, when the appeal was called out, the Complainant, at whose instance the FIR was registered arraigning the Appellant, as accused, appeared before us and she requested to put an end to the proceedings, as she has moved ahead in life and she do not want the proceedings in the appeal to continue but, she also requested that the amount which is deposited in the Court, shall be refunded to her with the interest accrued thereon. In the wake of the above, she was directed to file an affidavit, so that it could be taken into consideration on the next date of hearing. 3. On 01.08.2025, when the Appeal was listed, the Complainant, at whose instance the prosecution was initiated against the Appellant, filed her affidavit wherein she categorically made the following statement : “5. I say that with the passage of time, I have emotionally and psychologically moved on in life. I say that I am settled in life and have married. I say that I no longer harbor any animosity, bitterness, or grudges against Mr Siddesh Juvekar. 6. I say that I have no desire to pursue or prolong any legal proceedings or penal consequences against Mr Siddesh Juvekar as such this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc impugned conviction dated 03/09/2016 and 07/09/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Margao and acquit Mr Siddesh Juvekar of the offences under Section 376 and 420 IPC provided the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- deposited by Mr Siddesh Juvekar before this Hon'ble Court pursuant to order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 190/2016 is released to me along with the accrued interest.” 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai, who represent the Appellant, expressed that he has no hesitancy in permitting the withdrawal of the amount by the Complainant. However, a question arose before me, which I specifically recorded in the order of 01.08.2025 formulating thus : “A two-fold question arises before me namely; (a)whether a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence can be quashed because the complainant at this stage is desirous of taking back her allegations, (b) what is the power which the Court would invoke in accepting her stand and overturning the judgment delivered by the competent Court based upon the evidence placed before it.” Therefore, I requested Mr. Desai and the Additional Public Prosecutor to render assistance in this regard. 5. Today, when the matter was listed, Mr. Pavithran, assisting Mr. Desai, would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, when the Apex Court examined the inherent power available to the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 320 relating to 1 (2022) 14 SCC 531 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc quashment of criminal proceedings post-conviction, upon compromise in cases of non-compoundable offence. Dealing with the situation where even an appeal against conviction was dismissed, the power of the High Court under Section 482 was analysed threadbare and with reference to the earlier decision in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab2 and also decision of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan3, the conspectus of the power was emphasized, by setting out that the power conferred under Section 482, to quash the proceedings for the non- compoundable offence can be exercised in cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes, when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. However, the power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions, which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, the offence under the special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity was held to be not allowed to be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise being reached. 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 (2019) 5 SCC 688 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc However, the following observations of the Apex Court deserve a reproduction : “11. True it is that offences which are "non-compoundable" cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 CrPC. Any such attempt by the Court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 CrPC, which is the exclusive domain of legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 CrPC, which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of "compoundable" offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 CrPC in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.” 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc 6. The Apex Court specifically observed that criminal proceedings not involving heinous offence or the offences, which are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction as handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. It is specifically held that cases where compromise is struck post- conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. In no uncertain terms, the Court expressed thus : “13. ... The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the power of the high Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab[(2016) 6 SCC and Laxmi Nayaran [(2019) 5 SCC 688]” Reiterating that grave or serious offence or offences involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc construed betwixt two individuals or groups as it has the potential to impact the society at large. 7. 7. The power of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, with an intent to do complete justice was also discussed at length with reference to the decision in case of Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India4 as well as the decision in case of Supreme Court Bar Association5. It is ultimately held that in absence of express provision akin to Section 482 of CrPC, conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution, embraces the Court with power to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. It was therefore held that as opposed to Section 320 of Cr.PC, where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.PC., however, such power should warrant a careful exercise while considering the nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society, the seriousness of the injury, if any, voluntary nature of 4 (1991) 4 SCC 584 5 (1998) 4 SCC 409 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc compromise between the accused and the victim and conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence or other relevant considerations. By invoking the power under Section 142, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the Appeals by considering that both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995 respectively and particularly when there was nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties. Similarly, the Court also considered that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants more so looking at their present age. 8. Another decision placed before me is the Judgment dated 14.07.2025 delivered by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in Madhukar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.6, which involve the FIR registered under Section 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 of IPC giving rise to Sessions Case No. 29/2024. This FIR was registered on a day subsequent to registration of the 1st FIR on 19.11.2023, invoking Sections 141, 143, 147, 149, 324, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against the appellants. 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc In the 2nd FIR, an affidavit was filed before the High Court by the Complainant expressing her desire not to proceed with the prosecution and she accorded no objection to grant bail to the accused and had affirmed that the matter had been amicably resolved and she had received Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage related expenses. Based on this, the appellants moved criminal applications under Section 482 of Cr.PC before the High Court for quashing the FIRs and the High Court rejected both the applications holding that the offence under Section 376 being serious and non-compoundable, could not be quashed merely on the basis of settlement of monetary compensation and the Court concluded that the compromise could not form the basis for quashing proceedings in such cases. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Apex Court as it is in this background, Their Lordships observed that offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of grave and heinous nature and ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case. The appeals were allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court with the following observations : 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc “7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was fled immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in' her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome. 8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.” 10. In the case before me, the Complainant who became friendly with the accused alleged that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, coupled with the promise to marry. The question that fell for consideration before the trial Judge, who tried the accused for the offence of rape was whether the accused gave out a false promise of marrying the victim, which misled her in agreeing to have sexual 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc intercourse with him and therefore whether he is guilty of having sexual intercourse without her consent. The Complainant herself stepped into the witness box in support of the accusations of Section 376 and also deposed about advancing a huge sum of money on account of purchase of flat but the money not being returned, alleged commission of an offence under Section 420 of IPC. Recording a finding of guilt on both the aspects, the Appellant stood convicted and sentenced. 11. An appeal is filed raising a challenge to the impugned Judgment and it is at this stage the Complainant stands before me and states that she is the Complainant at whose instance the prosecution machinery was set rolling but she did not want to prosecute the Appellant, as she has moved ahead in life and she is now married and no longer is harbouring any animosity, bitterness or grudges against him and, therefore, she seeks his acquittal under Section 376 and 420 of IPC provided that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is released in her favour along with the accrued interest. 12. On appreciating the evidence lead, the trial Judge has recorded a finding that the Appellant is guilty of committing forcible sexual intercourse and thus an offence under Section 376 of IPC. Page 11 of 15 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc While the appeal is being heard, I would be re-appreciating the evidence placed before the Court and since I have not touched the merits of the matter, at the most it can be said that the finding rendered may be upheld or it may result into the acquittal of the Appellant, as his defence is of a consensual relationship being maintained between the two adults and that the trial Judge has failed to appreciate this relationship between consenting couple, and just because the relationship went bad, resulted into his prosecution. Since I have not reached the stage of appreciating the evidence but, at this stage, the Complainant appeared and stated that with the passage of time, she has emotionally and psychologically moved ahead in life and no longer harbour any bitterness or grudge and now that she is settled in life and is also married, she is giving her no objection for acquitting him of the charges. 13. The peculiar circumstances set before me are thus exceptional circumstances, where I feel that the proceedings must come to an end as the Complainant is categorically stating that she is now married, settled in her personal life and she do not desire to continue with the proceedings, which is definitely not in her interest. The Complainant marked her presence before me and reiterated that she do not want to prosecute the proceedings and want to put it to an end for her betterment. Page 12 of 15 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc 14. On considering the plea placed before me, as probably by this time, the Appellant has also moved ahead in life and may have his own family and at this stage when the Complainant at whose instance the prosecution was launched, as she accused him of having forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage, herself is not desirous of prosecuting him and in unequivocal words, has disclosed to me that she has reconciled with the circumstances and the Appellant has also expressed no difficulty in returning back the amount deposited in the Court in her favour, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case by taking into account the bold stand adopted by the Complainant and the nature of settlement as arrived between the parties, which will put both of them at peace so that they can lead their remaining life and breathe freely and in such a case, continuation of the proceedings against the Appellant, would amount to nothing but abuse of process. In the aforesaid exceptional circumstances, being conscious of the fact, that an offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the public and is an offence involving moral turpitude, and is case of heinous nature, but since the complainant herself has come up before the Court and expressed that she is not interested that the sentence of conviction imposed upon the Appellant shall be implemented, I am of the view, that since the whole purport of the power under Section 482 is do substantial justice between the parties and since the Complainant on her own volition, without any coercion and compulsion, willingly 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc and voluntarily has made the statement before me, and the parties have agreed for a quietus, I see no reason why it shall not be granted despite the fact, that at this stage, when I am called upon to adjudicate the legal validity or otherwise of the impugned Judgment convicting the Appellant. Since continuation of the proceedings against the Appellant in the wake of the affidavit of the Complainant, would amount to abuse of process and definitely would cause further disruption in her personal life and she has decided to put an end to the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 03.09.2016 and acquit the Appellant of the charges levelled against him in the wake of the stand adopted by the Complainant. However, it is further directed that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is deposited in this Court pursuant to the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application no. 190/2016, shall be credited to the account of the Complainant, the details of which are provided in the affidavit to the following effect : “7. I say that my account details for the purpose of releasing the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with the accrued interest are Bank of Baroda, Cansa branch, account no. 04860100026620 IFSC code BARBODBCANS [Fifth character is zero].” 8th August 2025 02-CRIA-69-2016.doc 15. Registry shall credit the amount to the aforesaid account by transferring the said amount along with interest accrued thereon within a period of six weeks from today. The Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and consequential sentence imposed on the Appellant. BHARATI DANGRE, J. 8th August 2025 Signed by: ANDREZA RODRIGUES EPEREIRA Designation: Senior Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge Date: 13/08/2025 15:26:30