Andhra Pradesh High Court: The Single Judge bench of R. Raghunandan Rao, J., held that the offence under Section 376 can be permitted to be compounded under special circumstances, including a situation where closure of such a case would promote family life of the complainant and the accused.
In the matter at hand, the complainant stated that she was in a relationship with the accused and was upset when the accused sought to marry another girl despite their relationship. On account of frustration, filed a complaint under Sections 376, 417 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3(v), 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant moved the Court to withdraw the complaint and compromise the matter as the issues had been settled amicably between them and accordingly decided to live their respective lives.
The Court referred Satish K. v. State of Karnataka (2022) SCC OnLine Kar 899 where Kerala High Court held that an offence under Section 376 IPC can be permitted to be compounded, in specific circumstances, including a situation where closure of such case would promote the family life of the parties. .
The Court also referred K. Dhandapani v. State by the Inspector of Police (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1056, where the Court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 376 of IPC as well as offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Court, therefore, allowed the criminal petition and permitted compromise between the accused and victim.
[Gokada Suresh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 57, decided on 04.01.2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate, for the Petitioner;
Additional Public Prosecutor , SR Sanku and Kavita Murali Krishna, Advocates, for the Respondents.
